EXK vs HL Stock Comparison
Endeavour Silver Corp. vs Hecla Mining Company
HL leads
HL leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support HL, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Endeavour Silver Corp.
Hecla Mining Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HL over EXK, 56 versus 44 as of Sep 5, 2026. HL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. HL also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HL today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. HL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Endeavour Silver Corp. and Hecla Mining Company across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare EXK and HL 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 Resilience15%32 vs 53HL +21
- Quality30%48 vs 68HL +20
- Value30%27 vs 36HL +9
- Momentum25%68 vs 69Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor HL. HL’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
HL's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EXK and HL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HL (Hecla Mining Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
EXK (Endeavour Silver Corp.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 79.8% against 73.3%.
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
HLHL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EXKEXK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HLHL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
HLHL on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
HLHL 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 | EXK | HL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.1% | +13.3% | HL has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +24.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | HL | 44 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | HLon balance | revenue growth 2.1% vs -18.9%; EPS growth -4.3% vs 7%; TTM ROE 10.5% vs 13%; gross margin 28.3% vs 56.1%; operating margin 25.7% vs 46.8% — HL takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | HL | Value 27 vs 36 |
| Technicals | EXK | Price vs 50-day 21.6% vs 21.1%; vs 200-day 13.1% vs 9% |
| Risk Resilience | HL | Risk Resilience 32 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | HL | Target upside -1.1% vs 13.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EXK and HL and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 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 HL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4HL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HL +12
- 44 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- HL +15
- 44 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- HL +10
- 47 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- HL +13
- 40 vs 53
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.58%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.14%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
HL 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 -3.05%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.5%, 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.
- 1EXK closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to HL's edge.
- 2EXK's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3HL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
HL leads on balance| Metric | EXK | HL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.1% | -18.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -4.3% | 7% |
| Gross margin | 28.3% | 56.1% |
| Operating margin | 25.7% | 46.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.5% | 13% |
| Debt to equity | 0.35 | 0 |
Performance
HL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | EXK | HL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.3% | 1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 16.6% | 22.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 39% | 39.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.5% | 1.4% |
| Year to date | 18.3% | 7.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 72.4% | 130.4% |
Technicals
EXK has the stronger structure| Metric | EXK | HL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58.3 | 58.8 |
| ADX (14) | 25.8 | 31.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 21.6% | 21.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.1% | 9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 79.8% | 73.3% |
Risk
HL is the more resilient| Metric | EXK | HL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.98 | 2.5 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.09 | 1.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.77 | 2.48 |
| Max drawdown | -47.5% | -55.8% |
| Current drawdown | -21.3% | -35% |
| Annualized volatility | 80.2% | 74.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.5% | -6.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EXK or HL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 56 against EXK's 44. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 EXK or HL the better buy right now?
HL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HL over EXK?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. HL leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; HL leads Quality by 20 points; HL leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EXK or HL?
Analyst price targets imply -1.1% upside for EXK and +13.3% for HL, so the Street currently favors HL. 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, EXK or HL?
HL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, EXK or HL?
EXK 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, EXK or HL?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum carries 25% of 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, EXK or HL?
HL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HL on Risk Resilience, by 21 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is EXK more profitable than HL?
HL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 28.3% vs 56.1%; operating margin 25.7% vs 46.8%; ttm roe 10.5% vs 13%.
Is HL's lead over EXK getting stronger or weaker?
HL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the EXK vs HL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EXK closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to HL's edge; EXK's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; HL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about EXK and HL?
EXK: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. HL: 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 EXK is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On HL it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare EXK and HL with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.