BTG vs FNV Stock Comparison
BTG currently leads FNV in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 56. The clearest difference is value, while FNV has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between BTG and FNV?
BTG leads the current stock comparison as B2Gold Corp., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
B2Gold Corp. vs Franco-Nevada Corporation
BTG leads
BTG leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Value, but the lead has narrowed from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support BTG, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
B2Gold Corp.
Franco-Nevada Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BTG over FNV, 62 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. BTG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while FNV holds the stronger risk resilience profile. BTG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BTG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. BTG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare B2Gold Corp. and Franco-Nevada Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare BTG and FNV against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Value68 vs 29BTG +39
- Risk Resilience52 vs 72FNV +20
- Quality72 vs 79FNV +7
- Momentum48 vs 51Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor BTG. BTG’s edge is concentrated in value; FNV keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
BTG's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BTG and FNV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BTG (B2Gold Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
FNV (Franco-Nevada Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, fundamentals.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
BTGBTG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BTGBTG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BTGBTG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 39 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
FNVFNV on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
BTGBTG on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | BTG | FNV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.5% | +14% | BTG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +40.5% | +16.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | BTG | FNV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | -6.17% | 8.09% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.110 | $1.030 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.080 | $1.520 |
| Years increased | 1 | 5 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #144 |
FNV grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 8.09% a year against BTG's -6.17%. FNV never reduced its regular dividend in the window; BTG did in 1 year. They are ranked in different cohorts — variable-dividend payers and US dividend-paying corporations — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BTG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BTG | 62 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | FNVon balance | revenue growth -32.7% vs -10.7%; EPS growth 106.7% vs -23.7%; TTM ROE 21.9% vs 19.1%; gross margin 49.2% vs 77.3%; operating margin 46% vs 75.6% — FNV takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BTG | Value 68 vs 29 |
| Technicals | BTG | Price vs 50-day -1.5% vs -3.7%; vs 200-day 8% vs 0.6% |
| Risk Resilience | FNV | Risk Resilience 52 vs 72 |
| Analyst expectations | BTG | Target upside 17.5% vs 14% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BTG and FNV and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on BTG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20BTG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BTG +6
- 62 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- BTG +8
- 60 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- BTG +10
- 63 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- BTG +5
- 69 vs 64
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 5 when BTG moved ahead of FNV.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only BTG
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.95%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
BTG leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.96%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.98%, AIQ +2 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1FNV closes the Value gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to BTG's edge.
- 2FNV's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3BTG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate BTG's advantage entirely.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
FNV leads on balance| Metric | BTG | FNV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -32.7% | -10.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 106.7% | -23.7% |
| Gross margin | 49.2% | 77.3% |
| Operating margin | 46% | 75.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21.9% | 19.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.11 | 0 |
Performance
BTG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BTG | FNV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.4% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.8% | -9.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 31.6% | 12.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.2% | -2.6% |
| Year to date | 15.3% | 16.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -10% | 12.1% |
Technicals
BTG has the stronger structure| Metric | BTG | FNV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.3 | 53.2 |
| ADX (14) | 9.7 | 28.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.5% | -3.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8% | 0.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 39.9% | 32.1% |
Risk
FNV is the more resilient| Metric | BTG | FNV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2 | 1.19 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.13 | 0.53 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.21 | 0.73 |
| Max drawdown | -41.2% | -29.4% |
| Current drawdown | -16.3% | -14.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 61.3% | 38.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.7% | -4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BTG or FNV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BTG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against FNV's 56. The edge comes from value. FNV is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is BTG or FNV the better buy right now?
BTG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BTG over FNV?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BTG leads Value by 39 points; FNV leads Risk Resilience by 20 points; FNV leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BTG or FNV?
Analyst price targets imply +17.5% upside for BTG and +14% for FNV, so the Street currently favors BTG. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, BTG or FNV?
BTG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BTG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 39 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, BTG or FNV?
BTG on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, BTG or FNV?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, BTG or FNV?
FNV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FNV on Risk Resilience, by 20 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is BTG more profitable than FNV?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 49.2% vs 77.3%; operating margin 46% vs 75.6%; ttm roe 21.9% vs 19.1%. BTG leads on one measure and FNV on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is BTG's lead over FNV getting stronger or weaker?
BTG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-05, when BTG moved ahead of FNV.
What would change the BTG vs FNV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FNV closes the Value gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to BTG's edge; FNV's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; BTG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate BTG's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BTG and FNV?
BTG: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FNV: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on BTG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FNV it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BTG and FNV with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.