FSM vs GOLD Stock Comparison
FSM currently leads GOLD in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 43. The clearest difference is quality, while GOLD has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between FSM and GOLD?
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
Fortuna Mining Corp. vs Gold.com, Inc.
FSM leads
FSM leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 19 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors GOLD on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support FSM, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fortuna Mining Corp.
Gold.com, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FSM over GOLD, 57 versus 43 as of Oct 21, 2026. FSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while GOLD holds the stronger risk resilience profile. FSM 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 FSM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. FSM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fortuna Mining Corp. and Gold.com, Inc. 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 FSM 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.
- Quality76 vs 29FSM +47
- Momentum39 vs 24FSM +15
- Risk Resilience41 vs 51GOLD +10
- Value60 vs 68GOLD +8
2 of 6 evidence groups favor FSM. FSM’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; GOLD 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: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
FSM's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FSM and GOLD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FSM (Fortuna Mining Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
GOLD (Gold.com, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, fundamentals.
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
FSMFSM 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 8 points.
Momentum
FSMFSM on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
GOLDGOLD on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 FSM, analyst targets favor GOLD. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FSM | GOLD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +40.2% | +55.6% | GOLD has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +29.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 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 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 | 57 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | GOLDon balance | revenue growth -7% vs 59.8%; EPS growth -30.6% vs 3.9%; TTM ROE 22.2% vs 11.5% — GOLD takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GOLD | Value 60 vs 68 |
| Technicals | FSM | Price vs 50-day -9.7% vs -11.3%; vs 200-day 0.4% vs -14.7% |
| Risk Resilience | GOLD | Risk Resilience 41 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | GOLD | Target upside 40.2% vs 55.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FSM 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 wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 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 21 – Oct 20FSM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FSM +14
- 57 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- FSM +13
- 56 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- FSM +19
- 60 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- FSM +11
- 67 vs 56
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 / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only FSM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.73%)
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only GOLD
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.31%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
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 -0.48%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.65%, AIQ 0 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 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to FSM's edge.
- 2GOLD'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.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate FSM'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 | FSM | GOLD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7% | 59.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -30.6% | 3.9% |
| Gross margin | 57.1% | 0.7% |
| Operating margin | 52.5% | -0.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 22.2% | 11.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.13 | 0.84 |
Performance
FSM leads 3 of 5 windows| Metric | FSM | GOLD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.8% | -5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -14.9% | -14.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 20.7% | -5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.1% | -16.6% |
| Year to date | 5.9% | 12.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 9.6% | — |
Technicals
FSM has the stronger structure| Metric | FSM | GOLD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.7 | 27 |
| ADX (14) | 22.1 | 28.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.7% | -11.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.4% | -14.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 51.2% | 27.8% |
Risk
GOLD is the more resilient| Metric | FSM | GOLD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.1 | 1.61 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.53 | 0.71 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.79 | 1.36 |
| Max drawdown | -41.2% | -41.4% |
| Current drawdown | -23.9% | -40.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 58% | 54.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.6% | -4.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FSM or GOLD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FSM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 57 against GOLD's 43. The edge comes from quality and momentum. GOLD 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 FSM or GOLD the better buy right now?
FSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 FSM over GOLD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FSM leads Quality by 47 points; FSM leads Momentum by 15 points; GOLD leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FSM or GOLD?
Analyst price targets imply +40.2% upside for FSM and +55.6% for GOLD, so the Street currently favors GOLD. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FSM. 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, FSM or GOLD?
GOLD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GOLD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, FSM 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, FSM or GOLD?
FSM on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, FSM or GOLD?
GOLD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GOLD on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 FSM more profitable than GOLD?
FSM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 57.1% vs 0.7%; operating margin 52.5% vs -0.5%; ttm roe 22.2% vs 11.5%.
Is FSM's lead over GOLD getting stronger or weaker?
FSM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the FSM 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 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to FSM's edge; GOLD'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; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate FSM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FSM and GOLD?
FSM: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. GOLD: 1 bullish / 3 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 FSM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GOLD it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FSM 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.