FNV vs GOLD Stock Comparison
Compare FNV and GOLD across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between FNV and GOLD?
FNV leads the current stock comparison as Franco-Nevada Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Franco-Nevada Corporation vs Gold.com, Inc.
FNV leads
FNV leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors GOLD on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support FNV, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Franco-Nevada Corporation
Gold.com, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FNV over GOLD, 57 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. FNV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while GOLD 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 GOLD. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FNV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. FNV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Franco-Nevada Corporation and Gold.com, Inc. 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 FNV and GOLD 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.
- Quality79 vs 29FNV +50
- Value29 vs 68GOLD +39
- Risk Resilience69 vs 38FNV +31
- Momentum58 vs 56Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor FNV. FNV’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; GOLD 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 -9
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 — FNV and GOLD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FNV (Franco-Nevada Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
GOLD (Gold.com, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 74.4% 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
GOLDGOLD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GOLDGOLD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 39 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
FNVFNV on Risk Resilience, by 31 points.
Analyst upside
GOLDGOLD 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 GOLD. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FNV | GOLD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4.3% | +25.3% | GOLD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.6% | +29.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 4 | 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
2 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 | 57 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | GOLDon balance | revenue growth -10.7% vs 59.8%; EPS growth -23.7% vs 3.9%; TTM ROE 19.1% vs 11.5% — GOLD takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GOLD | Value 29 vs 68 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 14.6% vs 12.6%; vs 200-day 11.5% vs n/a |
| Risk Resilience | FNV | Risk Resilience 69 vs 38 |
| Analyst expectations | GOLD | Target upside 4.3% vs 25.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FNV and GOLD 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 8 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FNV +8
- 57 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- FNV +12
- 61 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- FNV +11
- 64 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- GOLD +1
- 51 vs 52
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 8 when FNV moved ahead of GOLD.
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, 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
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.59%)
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 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.05%, AIQ -3 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +5.1%, 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.
- 1GOLD closes the Quality gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNV's edge.
- 2GOLD's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3FNV'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 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate FNV'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
GOLD leads on balance| Metric | FNV | GOLD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -10.7% | 59.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.7% | 3.9% |
| Gross margin | 77.3% | 0.7% |
| Operating margin | 75.6% | -0.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.1% | 11.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.84 |
Performance
FNV leads 3 of 5 windows| Metric | FNV | GOLD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.4% | 4.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 10.5% | 2.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 25% | 12.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.9% | -9.1% |
| Year to date | 25.8% | 34.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 32.1% | — |
Technicals
Split| Metric | FNV | GOLD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.9 | 50.5 |
| ADX (14) | 34.9 | 14.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 14.6% | 12.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.5% | — |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.9% | 74.4% |
Risk
FNV is the more resilient| Metric | FNV | GOLD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.11 | 1.7 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.83 | 1.2 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.12 | 2.26 |
| Max drawdown | -29.4% | -41.4% |
| Current drawdown | -7.2% | -28.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 39.2% | 56.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -4.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FNV or GOLD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FNV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against GOLD's 49. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. GOLD 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 FNV or GOLD the better buy right now?
FNV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FNV over GOLD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FNV leads Quality by 50 points; GOLD leads Value by 39 points; FNV leads Risk Resilience by 31 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FNV or GOLD?
Analyst price targets imply +4.3% upside for FNV and +25.3% for GOLD, so the Street currently favors GOLD. 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, FNV or GOLD?
GOLD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GOLD 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, FNV or GOLD?
GOLD 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, FNV or GOLD?
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, FNV or GOLD?
FNV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FNV on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 FNV more profitable than GOLD?
FNV leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 77.3% vs 0.7%; operating margin 75.6% vs -0.5%; ttm roe 19.1% vs 11.5%.
Is FNV's lead over GOLD getting stronger or weaker?
FNV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 8 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-08, when FNV moved ahead of GOLD.
What would change the FNV vs GOLD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GOLD closes the Quality gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNV's edge; GOLD's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; FNV'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 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate FNV's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FNV and GOLD?
FNV: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. GOLD: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. 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 FNV is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On GOLD it is Bollinger Band Squeeze (neutral, short horizon).
Compare FNV and GOLD 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.