EQX vs FNV Stock Comparison
Compare EQX and FNV across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between EQX and FNV?
FNV leads the current stock comparison as Franco-Nevada Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Equinox Gold Corp. vs Franco-Nevada Corporation
FNV leads
FNV leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality. Wall Street currently favors EQX on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FNV, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Equinox Gold Corp.
Franco-Nevada Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FNV over EQX, 57 versus 52 as of Sep 11, 2026. FNV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while EQX holds the stronger value profile. FNV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors EQX. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FNV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. FNV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Equinox Gold Corp. and Franco-Nevada Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare EQX 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.
- Risk Resilience31 vs 69FNV +38
- Value56 vs 29EQX +27
- Quality60 vs 79FNV +19
- Momentum49 vs 58FNV +9
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FNV. FNV’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; EQX keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -7
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -9
No new signals fired.
FNV's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EQX and FNV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FNV (Franco-Nevada Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
EQX (Equinox Gold Corp.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 61.6% against 41.9%.
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
FNVFNV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EQXEQX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 points.
Momentum
FNVFNV on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
FNVFNV on Risk Resilience, by 38 points.
Analyst upside
EQXEQX on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FNV, analyst targets favor EQX. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | EQX | FNV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.9% | +4.3% | EQX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +7.4% | +16.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 5 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FNV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FNV | 52 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | FNV | revenue growth -10.7% vs -10.7%; EPS growth -25.6% vs -23.7%; TTM ROE 13.7% vs 19.1%; gross margin 39.1% vs 77.3%; operating margin 37.9% vs 75.6% |
| Valuation | EQX | Value 56 vs 29 |
| Technicals | FNV | Price vs 50-day 13.4% vs 14.6%; vs 200-day -8.1% vs 11.5% |
| Risk Resilience | FNV | Risk Resilience 31 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | EQX | Target upside 8.9% vs 4.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EQX 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 narrow at 5 points. (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 FNV.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10FNV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FNV +5
- 52 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- FNV +6
- 55 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- FNV +7
- 57 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- FNV +5
- 46 vs 51
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on May 14 when FNV 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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (21.42%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.72%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.71%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
FNV 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.64%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.05%, AIQ -3 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.
- 1EQX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNV's edge.
- 2EQX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3FNV'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
FNV leads on balance| Metric | EQX | FNV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -10.7% | -10.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -25.6% | -23.7% |
| Gross margin | 39.1% | 77.3% |
| Operating margin | 37.9% | 75.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.7% | 19.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.09 | 0 |
Performance
FNV leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | EQX | FNV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.4% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.8% | 10.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 25.4% | 25% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -24% | -1.9% |
| Year to date | -13.1% | 25.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 28.2% | 32.1% |
Technicals
FNV has the stronger structure| Metric | EQX | FNV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.4 | 51.9 |
| ADX (14) | 21.8 | 34.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 13.4% | 14.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.1% | 11.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 61.6% | 41.9% |
Risk
FNV is the more resilient| Metric | EQX | FNV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.88 | 1.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.58 | 0.83 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.91 | 1.12 |
| Max drawdown | -54% | -29.4% |
| Current drawdown | -35% | -7.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 62.5% | 39.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7% | -4.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EQX or FNV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FNV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against EQX's 52. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. EQX is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 EQX or FNV the better buy right now?
FNV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FNV over EQX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FNV leads Risk Resilience by 38 points; EQX leads Value by 27 points; FNV leads Quality by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EQX or FNV?
Analyst price targets imply +8.9% upside for EQX and +4.3% for FNV, so the Street currently favors EQX. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FNV. 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, EQX or FNV?
EQX is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EQX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 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, EQX or FNV?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, EQX or FNV?
FNV on the Momentum factor, by 9 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, EQX or FNV?
FNV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FNV on Risk Resilience, by 38 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 EQX more profitable than FNV?
FNV leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 39.1% vs 77.3%; operating margin 37.9% vs 75.6%; ttm roe 13.7% vs 19.1%.
Is FNV's lead over EQX getting stronger or weaker?
FNV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-05-14, when FNV moved ahead of EQX.
What would change the EQX vs FNV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EQX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNV's edge; EQX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; FNV'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 EQX and FNV?
EQX: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. FNV: 1 bullish / 2 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 EQX is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On FNV it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare EQX 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.