CDE vs EQX Stock Comparison
EQX currently leads CDE in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 47. The clearest difference is momentum, while CDE has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between CDE and EQX?
EQX leads the current stock comparison as Equinox Gold Corp., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Coeur Mining, Inc. vs Equinox Gold Corp.
EQX leads
EQX leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value. Wall Street currently favors CDE on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support EQX, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Coeur Mining, Inc.
Equinox Gold Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EQX over CDE, 50 versus 47 as of Oct 21, 2026. EQX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while CDE holds the stronger risk resilience profile. EQX also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CDE. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EQX today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. EQX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Coeur Mining, Inc. and Equinox Gold Corp. 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 CDE and EQX 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.
- Risk Resilience53 vs 31CDE +22
- Momentum24 vs 41EQX +17
- Value45 vs 56EQX +11
- Quality64 vs 60CDE +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor EQX. EQX’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; CDE 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: Risk Resilience +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
EQX's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CDE and EQX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EQX (Equinox Gold Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
CDE (Coeur Mining, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, analyst expectations.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
EQXEQX on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EQXEQX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EQXEQX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
EQXEQX on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
CDECDE on Risk Resilience, by 22 points.
Analyst upside
CDECDE on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors EQX, analyst targets favor CDE. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CDE | EQX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +56% | +22.3% | CDE has more room |
| Target dispersion | +40.3% | +7.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EQX. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 47 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | EQXon balance | revenue growth 26.8% vs -10.7%; EPS growth -69.2% vs -25.6%; TTM ROE 12.5% vs 13.7%; gross margin 50.4% vs 39.1%; operating margin 35% vs 37.9% — EQX takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | EQX | Value 45 vs 56 |
| Technicals | EQX | Price vs 50-day -20.3% vs -7.8%; vs 200-day -21% vs -14.5% |
| Risk Resilience | CDE | Risk Resilience 53 vs 31 |
| Analyst expectations | CDE | Target upside 56% vs 22.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CDE and EQX 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 narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 EQX.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20EQX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EQX +3
- 47 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- EQX +2
- 46 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- EQX +1
- 46 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- CDE +4
- 61 vs 57
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 7 when CDE moved ahead of EQX.
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 / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only CDE
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only EQX
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure Active.
EQX 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price 0%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.18%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1CDE closes the Momentum gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to EQX's edge.
- 2CDE's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3EQX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
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
EQX leads on balance| Metric | CDE | EQX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 26.8% | -10.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -69.2% | -25.6% |
| Gross margin | 50.4% | 39.1% |
| Operating margin | 35% | 37.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.5% | 13.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.07 | 0.09 |
Performance
EQX leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CDE | EQX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.9% | 1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -26.2% | -13.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.5% | 18.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -18% | -21.9% |
| Year to date | -15.1% | -21.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -32.6% | -12.6% |
Technicals
EQX has the stronger structure| Metric | CDE | EQX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 26 | 49.3 |
| ADX (14) | 26.5 | 13 |
| Price vs 50-day | -20.3% | -7.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -21% | -14.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.3% | 54.2% |
Risk
CDE is the more resilient| Metric | CDE | EQX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.97 | 2.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.14 | 0.12 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.21 | 0.19 |
| Max drawdown | -47.9% | -54% |
| Current drawdown | -44.3% | -41% |
| Annualized volatility | 73.2% | 62.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.5% | -7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CDE or EQX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EQX is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 50 against CDE's 47. The edge comes from momentum and value. CDE 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 CDE or EQX the better buy right now?
EQX carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EQX over CDE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CDE leads Risk Resilience by 22 points; EQX leads Momentum by 17 points; EQX leads Value by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CDE or EQX?
Analyst price targets imply +56% upside for CDE and +22.3% for EQX, so the Street currently favors CDE. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors EQX. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CDE or EQX?
EQX is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EQX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, CDE or EQX?
EQX 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, CDE or EQX?
EQX on the Momentum factor, by 17 points. 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, CDE or EQX?
CDE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CDE on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 CDE more profitable than EQX?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 50.4% vs 39.1%; operating margin 35% vs 37.9%; ttm roe 12.5% vs 13.7%. CDE leads on one measure and EQX 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 EQX's lead over CDE getting stronger or weaker?
EQX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-07, when CDE moved ahead of EQX.
What would change the CDE vs EQX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CDE closes the Momentum gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to EQX's edge; CDE's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; EQX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about CDE and EQX?
CDE: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. EQX: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, 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 CDE is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On EQX it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CDE and EQX 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.