EQX vs FSM Stock Comparison
FSM currently leads EQX in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 48. The clearest difference is quality, while EQX has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between EQX and FSM?
FSM leads the current stock comparison as Fortuna Mining Corp., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Equinox Gold Corp. vs Fortuna Mining Corp.
FSM leads
FSM leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience.
Competitive: 6 of 6 evidence groups support FSM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Equinox Gold Corp.
Fortuna Mining Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FSM over EQX, 54 versus 48 as of Oct 31, 2026. FSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while EQX holds the stronger momentum profile. FSM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 6 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FSM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. FSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Equinox Gold Corp. and Fortuna Mining 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 EQX and FSM 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.
- Quality60 vs 76FSM +16
- Risk Resilience31 vs 40FSM +9
- Momentum35 vs 30EQX +5
- Value56 vs 60FSM +4
6 of 6 evidence groups favor FSM. FSM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; EQX keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
FSM's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EQX and FSM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FSM (Fortuna Mining Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
EQX (Equinox Gold Corp.): the counter-case, on momentum.
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
FSMFSM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
FSMFSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
EQXEQX on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
FSMFSM on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
FSMFSM 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 | EQX | FSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +39.2% | +63.3% | FSM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +7.4% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
6 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FSM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FSM | 48 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | FSMon balance | revenue growth -10.7% vs -7%; EPS growth -25.6% vs -30.6%; TTM ROE 13.7% vs 22.2%; gross margin 39.1% vs 57.1%; operating margin 37.9% vs 52.5% — FSM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FSM | Value 56 vs 60 |
| Technicals | FSM | Price vs 50-day -18.1% vs -21.6%; vs 200-day -18.2% vs -6.6% |
| Risk Resilience | FSM | Risk Resilience 31 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | FSM | Target upside 39.2% vs 63.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EQX and FSM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- 6 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 FSM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28FSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FSM +6
- 48 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- FSM +6
- 47 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- FSM +6
- 47 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- FSM +9
- 59 vs 68
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
Only EQX
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.17%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only FSM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.66%)
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
FSM 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 -4.72%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -5.23%, 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.
- 1EQX closes the Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to FSM's edge.
- 2EQX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3FSM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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
FSM leads on balance| Metric | EQX | FSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -10.7% | -7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -25.6% | -30.6% |
| Gross margin | 39.1% | 57.1% |
| Operating margin | 37.9% | 52.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.7% | 22.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.09 | 0.13 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | EQX | FSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.1% | -6.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.7% | -14.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 11.4% | 10% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -22% | 3.4% |
| Year to date | -25.4% | -1.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -5% | 18.3% |
Technicals
FSM has the stronger structure| Metric | EQX | FSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.6 | 36.7 |
| ADX (14) | 14.5 | 30.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -18.1% | -21.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -18.2% | -6.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 51.8% | 56.5% |
Risk
FSM is the more resilient| Metric | EQX | FSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.1 | 2.2 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.2 | 0.52 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.33 | 0.79 |
| Max drawdown | -54% | -41.2% |
| Current drawdown | -44.1% | -29.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 62.2% | 57.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.7% | -5.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EQX or FSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FSM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 54 against EQX's 48. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. EQX is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 FSM the better buy right now?
FSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 6 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FSM over EQX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FSM leads Quality by 16 points; FSM leads Risk Resilience by 9 points; EQX leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EQX or FSM?
Analyst price targets imply +39.2% upside for EQX and +63.3% for FSM, so the Street currently favors FSM. 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, EQX or FSM?
FSM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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 FSM?
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 FSM?
EQX on the Momentum factor, by 5 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 FSM?
FSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FSM on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 FSM?
FSM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 39.1% vs 57.1%; operating margin 37.9% vs 52.5%; ttm roe 13.7% vs 22.2%.
Is FSM's lead over EQX getting stronger or weaker?
FSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the EQX vs FSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EQX closes the Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to FSM's edge; EQX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; FSM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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 FSM?
EQX: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral. FSM: 1 bullish / 1 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 EQX is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On FSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EQX and FSM 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.