FSM vs KGC Stock Comparison
KGC currently leads FSM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 57. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while FSM has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between FSM and KGC?
KGC leads the current stock comparison as Kinross Gold Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fortuna Mining Corp. vs Kinross Gold Corporation
KGC leads
KGC leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from FSM.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support KGC, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fortuna Mining Corp.
Kinross Gold Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KGC over FSM, 62 versus 57 as of Oct 21, 2026. KGC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while FSM holds the stronger value profile. KGC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KGC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. KGC lead: Reversed — FSM led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; KGC now leads by 5.
Compare Fortuna Mining Corp. and Kinross Gold Corporation 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 KGC 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 Resilience41 vs 55KGC +14
- Quality76 vs 89KGC +13
- Value60 vs 56FSM +4
- Momentum39 vs 39Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor KGC. KGC’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; FSM keeps a meaningful value 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: Momentum +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
KGC's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FSM and KGC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KGC (Kinross Gold Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
FSM (Fortuna Mining Corp.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation.
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
KGCKGC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
KGCKGC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FSMFSM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
KGCKGC on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
KGCKGC 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 | FSM | KGC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +40.2% | +56.9% | KGC has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +58.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KGC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | KGC | 57 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | FSMon balance | revenue growth -7% vs -8.1%; TTM ROE 22.2% vs 35.7%; gross margin 57.1% vs 53.6%; operating margin 52.5% vs 50.1% — FSM takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FSM | Value 60 vs 56 |
| Technicals | FSM | Price vs 50-day -9.7% vs -13%; vs 200-day 0.4% vs -19% |
| Risk Resilience | KGC | Risk Resilience 41 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | KGC | Target upside 40.2% vs 56.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FSM and KGC 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)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 KGC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20KGC lead: Reversed — FSM led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; KGC now leads by 5.
- Today
- KGC +5
- 57 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- KGC +4
- 56 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- FSM +3
- 60 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- KGC +3
- 67 vs 70
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 7 when KGC moved ahead of FSM.
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%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only KGC
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.58%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
KGC 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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.76%, 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.
- 1FSM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to KGC's edge.
- 2FSM's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3KGC'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
FSM leads on balance| Metric | FSM | KGC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7% | -8.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -30.6% | 0% |
| Gross margin | 57.1% | 53.6% |
| Operating margin | 52.5% | 50.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 22.2% | 35.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.13 | 0.08 |
Performance
FSM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FSM | KGC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.8% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -14.9% | -17.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 20.7% | -2.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.1% | -26.3% |
| Year to date | 5.9% | -16.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 9.6% | -13% |
Technicals
FSM has the stronger structure| Metric | FSM | KGC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.7 | 46.1 |
| ADX (14) | 22.1 | 27.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.7% | -13% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.4% | -19% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 51.2% | 57.9% |
Risk
KGC is the more resilient| Metric | FSM | KGC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.1 | 1.85 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.53 | 0.1 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.79 | 0.13 |
| Max drawdown | -41.2% | -41.6% |
| Current drawdown | -23.9% | -37.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 58% | 54.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.6% | -5.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FSM or KGC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KGC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against FSM's 57. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. FSM 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 FSM or KGC the better buy right now?
KGC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 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 KGC over FSM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. KGC leads Risk Resilience by 14 points; KGC leads Quality by 13 points; FSM leads Value by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FSM or KGC?
Analyst price targets imply +40.2% upside for FSM and +56.9% for KGC, so the Street currently favors KGC. 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, FSM or KGC?
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, FSM or KGC?
KGC 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 KGC?
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, FSM or KGC?
KGC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. KGC on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 KGC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 57.1% vs 53.6%; operating margin 52.5% vs 50.1%; ttm roe 22.2% vs 35.7%. FSM leads on two measures and KGC on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is KGC's lead over FSM getting stronger or weaker?
KGC lead: Reversed — FSM led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; KGC now leads by 5. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-07, when KGC moved ahead of FSM.
What would change the FSM vs KGC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FSM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to KGC's edge; FSM's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; KGC'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 FSM and KGC?
FSM: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. KGC: 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 FSM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On KGC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FSM and KGC 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.