IAG vs MP Stock Comparison
Compare IAG and MP across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between IAG and MP?
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 MP Materials Corp.
IAG leads
IAG leads by 28 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 25 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors MP on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support IAG, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Iamgold Corporation
MP Materials Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IAG over MP, 62 versus 34 as of Sep 11, 2026. IAG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. IAG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MP. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IAG today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. IAG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 25 to 28 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Iamgold Corporation and MP Materials 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 MP 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 23IAG +56
- Value61 vs 34IAG +27
- Momentum59 vs 46IAG +13
- Risk Resilience34 vs 37Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor IAG. IAG’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
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 -3
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
IAG's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IAG and MP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IAG (Iamgold Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
MP (MP Materials 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
IAGIAG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
IAGIAG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 points.
Momentum
IAGIAG on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
EvenDownside measures are level or not covered.
Analyst upside
MPMP 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 MP. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | IAG | MP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.6% | +62.8% | MP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18.2% | +37.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 5 | 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
4 of 6 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 34 |
| Fundamentals | IAGon balance | revenue growth -18.9% vs 19.7%; EPS growth -40% vs -145.5%; TTM ROE 28.1% vs -2.7%; gross margin 49.9% vs -4.6%; operating margin 47.1% vs -33.1% — IAG takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | IAG | Value 61 vs 34 |
| Technicals | IAG | Price vs 50-day 16.7% vs -1.6%; vs 200-day 12% vs -10.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 34 vs 37 |
| Analyst expectations | MP | Target upside 8.6% vs 62.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of IAG and MP and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 28 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 IAG.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10IAG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 25 to 28 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IAG +28
- 62 vs 34
- 7 sessions ago
- IAG +30
- 64 vs 34
- 30 sessions ago
- IAG +25
- 67 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- IAG +26
- 54 vs 28
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 (12.19%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.18%)
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 -1.58%, 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.
- 1MP closes the Quality gap — currently 56 points behind, the largest single contributor to IAG's edge.
- 2MP'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.
- 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
IAG leads on balance| Metric | IAG | MP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -18.9% | 19.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -40% | -145.5% |
| Gross margin | 49.9% | -4.6% |
| Operating margin | 47.1% | -33.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 28.1% | -2.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.12 | 0.48 |
Performance
IAG leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | IAG | MP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.5% | -6.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.2% | -5.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 35.4% | -4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.9% | -17.6% |
| Year to date | 21.8% | 1.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 99.3% | -18.2% |
Technicals
IAG has the stronger structure| Metric | IAG | MP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.4 | 42.4 |
| ADX (14) | 29.8 | 19.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 16.7% | -1.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12% | -10.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 59.3% | 58.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | IAG | MP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.1 | 2.25 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.33 | 0.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.05 | 0.09 |
| Max drawdown | -43.3% | -61.4% |
| Current drawdown | -18.2% | -48% |
| Annualized volatility | 65.5% | 76.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -7.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, IAG or MP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IAG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 62 against MP's 34. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 MP the better buy right now?
IAG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor IAG over MP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IAG leads Quality by 56 points; IAG leads Value by 27 points; IAG leads Momentum by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, IAG or MP?
Analyst price targets imply +8.6% upside for IAG and +62.8% for MP, so the Street currently favors MP. 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 MP?
IAG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IAG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 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 MP?
IAG 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 MP?
IAG on the Momentum factor, by 13 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 MP?
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 MP?
IAG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 49.9% vs -4.6%; operating margin 47.1% vs -33.1%; ttm roe 28.1% vs -2.7%.
Is IAG's lead over MP getting stronger or weaker?
IAG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 25 to 28 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 MP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MP closes the Quality gap — currently 56 points behind, the largest single contributor to IAG's edge; MP'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; 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 IAG and MP?
IAG: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. MP: 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 MP it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare IAG and MP 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.