IAG vs KGC Stock Comparison
Compare IAG and KGC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between IAG 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
Iamgold Corporation vs Kinross Gold Corporation
KGC leads
KGC leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support KGC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Iamgold Corporation
Kinross Gold Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KGC over IAG, 63 versus 62 as of Sep 11, 2026. KGC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while IAG holds the stronger momentum 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 1 points. KGC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Iamgold Corporation and Kinross Gold Corporation 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 IAG 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 Resilience34 vs 54KGC +20
- Momentum59 vs 45IAG +14
- Quality79 vs 89KGC +10
- Value61 vs 56IAG +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor KGC. KGC’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; IAG keeps a meaningful momentum 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 -6
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -17
No new signals fired.
KGC's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IAG 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.
IAG (Iamgold Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, value, 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
IAGIAG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
IAGIAG on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
KGCKGC on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 | IAG | KGC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.6% | +27% | KGC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18.2% | +29.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 4 | 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 | Even | 62 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | KGC | revenue growth -18.9% vs -8.1%; TTM ROE 28.1% vs 35.7%; gross margin 49.9% vs 53.6%; operating margin 47.1% vs 50.1% |
| Valuation | IAG | Value 61 vs 56 |
| Technicals | IAG | Price vs 50-day 16.7% vs 9%; vs 200-day 12% vs -2% |
| Risk Resilience | KGC | Risk Resilience 34 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | KGC | Target upside 8.6% vs 27% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of IAG 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 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)
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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10KGC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- KGC +1
- 62 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- KGC +5
- 64 vs 69
- 30 sessions ago
- KGC +5
- 67 vs 72
- 90 sessions ago
- KGC +3
- 54 vs 57
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jun 18 when KGC moved ahead of IAG.
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 (3.32%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (10.55%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.28%)
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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.85%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.69%, AIQ -4 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.
- 1IAG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to KGC's edge.
- 2IAG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3KGC'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 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate KGC'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
KGC leads on balance| Metric | IAG | KGC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -18.9% | -8.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -40% | 0% |
| Gross margin | 49.9% | 53.6% |
| Operating margin | 47.1% | 50.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 28.1% | 35.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.12 | 0.08 |
Performance
IAG leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | IAG | KGC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.5% | -4.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.2% | 5.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 35.4% | 22.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.9% | -11.1% |
| Year to date | 21.8% | 2.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 99.3% | 33.1% |
Technicals
IAG has the stronger structure| Metric | IAG | KGC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.4 | 39.1 |
| ADX (14) | 29.8 | 28.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 16.7% | 9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12% | -2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 59.3% | 59.7% |
Risk
KGC is the more resilient| Metric | IAG | KGC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.1 | 1.77 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.33 | 0.68 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.05 | 0.95 |
| Max drawdown | -43.3% | -40.8% |
| Current drawdown | -18.2% | -24% |
| Annualized volatility | 65.5% | 54.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -5.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, IAG or KGC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KGC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 63 against IAG's 62. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. IAG 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 IAG or KGC the better buy right now?
KGC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor KGC over IAG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. KGC leads Risk Resilience by 20 points; IAG leads Momentum by 14 points; KGC leads Quality by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, IAG or KGC?
Analyst price targets imply +8.6% upside for IAG and +27% 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, IAG or KGC?
IAG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IAG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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, IAG 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, IAG or KGC?
IAG on the Momentum factor, by 14 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, IAG or KGC?
KGC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. KGC on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 IAG more profitable than KGC?
KGC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 49.9% vs 53.6%; operating margin 47.1% vs 50.1%; ttm roe 28.1% vs 35.7%.
Is KGC's lead over IAG getting stronger or weaker?
KGC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 1 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-06-18, when KGC moved ahead of IAG.
What would change the IAG vs KGC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: IAG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to KGC's edge; IAG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; KGC'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 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate KGC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about IAG and KGC?
IAG: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. KGC: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 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 IAG is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On KGC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare IAG 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.