IAG vs LAC Stock Comparison
Compare IAG and LAC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between IAG and LAC?
IAG leads the current stock comparison as Iamgold Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Iamgold Corporation vs Lithium Americas Corp.
IAG leads
IAG leads by 32 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 35 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors LAC on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 5 evidence groups support IAG, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Iamgold Corporation
Lithium Americas Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IAG over LAC, 62 versus 30 as of Sep 11, 2026. IAG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. IAG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors LAC. 2 of 5 covered evidence groups favor IAG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. IAG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 35 to 32 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Iamgold Corporation and Lithium Americas Corp. 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 LAC 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 18IAG +61
- Momentum59 vs 44IAG +15
- Risk Resilience34 vs 33Even
2 of 5 evidence groups favor IAG. IAG’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
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 -19
New signals
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
IAG's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IAG and LAC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IAG (Iamgold Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
LAC (Lithium Americas Corp.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations.
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
IAGIAG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
LACLAC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
IAGIAG on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
EvenDownside measures are level or not covered.
Analyst upside
LACLAC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors IAG, analyst targets favor LAC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | IAG | LAC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.6% | +46% | LAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18.2% | +11.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 2 | 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 5 covered evidence groups favor IAG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IAG | 62 vs 30 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth -40% vs 6.1%; TTM ROE 28.1% vs -9% |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | IAG | Price vs 50-day 16.7% vs -7.2%; vs 200-day 12% vs -31.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 34 vs 33 |
| Analyst expectations | LAC | Target upside 8.6% vs 46% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of IAG and LAC 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 32 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 2 of 5 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 IAG.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10IAG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 35 to 32 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IAG +32
- 62 vs 30
- 7 sessions ago
- IAG +36
- 64 vs 28
- 30 sessions ago
- IAG +35
- 67 vs 32
- 90 sessions ago
- IAG +29
- 54 vs 25
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 (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 (41.26%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.44%)
IAG 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -3.64%, AIQ -7 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.
- 1LAC closes the Quality gap — currently 61 points behind, the largest single contributor to IAG's edge.
- 2LAC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3IAG'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 32-point move would eliminate IAG'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
Split| Metric | IAG | LAC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -18.9% | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -40% | 6.1% |
| Gross margin | 49.9% | 0% |
| Operating margin | 47.1% | 0% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 28.1% | -9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.12 | 0.82 |
Performance
IAG leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | IAG | LAC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.5% | 0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.2% | -7.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 35.4% | -27.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.9% | -35.6% |
| Year to date | 21.8% | -30.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 99.3% | 1.7% |
Technicals
IAG has the stronger structure| Metric | IAG | LAC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.4 | 52.2 |
| ADX (14) | 29.8 | 12.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 16.7% | -7.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12% | -31.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 59.3% | 59.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | IAG | LAC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.1 | 2.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.33 | 0.53 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.05 | 1.39 |
| Max drawdown | -43.3% | -73% |
| Current drawdown | -18.2% | -70% |
| Annualized volatility | 65.5% | 132% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -7.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, IAG or LAC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IAG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 62 against LAC's 30. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 LAC the better buy right now?
IAG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor IAG over LAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IAG leads Quality by 61 points; IAG leads Momentum by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, IAG or LAC?
Analyst price targets imply +8.6% upside for IAG and +46% for LAC, so the Street currently favors LAC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors IAG. 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, IAG or LAC?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 LAC?
LAC 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 LAC?
IAG 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, IAG or LAC?
The two are close on downside measures. Downside measures are level or not covered. 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 LAC?
IAG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 49.9% vs 0%; operating margin 47.1% vs 0%; ttm roe 28.1% vs -9%.
Is IAG's lead over LAC getting stronger or weaker?
IAG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 35 to 32 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the IAG vs LAC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LAC closes the Quality gap — currently 61 points behind, the largest single contributor to IAG's edge; LAC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; IAG'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 32-point move would eliminate IAG's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about IAG and LAC?
IAG: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. LAC: 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 LAC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare IAG and LAC 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.