IAG vs XLK Stock Comparison
Compare IAG and XLK across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between IAG and XLK?
IAG leads the current stock comparison as Iamgold Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Iamgold Corporation vs State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
IAG leads
IAG leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support IAG, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Iamgold Corporation
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IAG over XLK, 62 versus 59 as of Sep 11, 2026. IAG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while XLK holds the stronger risk resilience profile. IAG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IAG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. IAG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Iamgold Corporation and State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF 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 XLK 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 62XLK +28
- Value61 vs 36IAG +25
- Momentum59 vs 65XLK +6
- Quality79 vs 74IAG +5
2 of 4 evidence groups favor IAG. IAG’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; XLK keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 -5
No new signals fired.
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 XLK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IAG (Iamgold Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
XLK (State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum.
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
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
IAGIAG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 points.
Momentum
XLKXLK on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
XLKXLK on Risk Resilience, by 28 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | IAG | XLK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.6% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +18.2% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 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 | Even | 62 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IAG | Value 61 vs 36 |
| Technicals | IAG | Price vs 50-day 16.7% vs 2.7%; vs 200-day 12% vs 15% |
| Risk Resilience | XLK | Risk Resilience 34 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of IAG and XLK 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IAG +3
- 62 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- IAG +8
- 64 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- IAG +8
- 67 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- IAG +11
- 54 vs 43
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Jun 5 when IAG moved ahead of XLK.
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
4 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.41%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.32%, 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.
- 1XLK closes the Value gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to IAG's edge.
- 2XLK's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 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 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-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 | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -18.9% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -40% | — |
| Gross margin | 49.9% | — |
| Operating margin | 47.1% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 28.1% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.12 | — |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | IAG | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.5% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.2% | -1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 35.4% | 4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.9% | 31.9% |
| Year to date | 21.8% | 28.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 99.3% | 39.9% |
Technicals
IAG has the stronger structure| Metric | IAG | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.4 | 54.1 |
| ADX (14) | 29.8 | 10.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 16.7% | 2.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12% | 15% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 59.3% | 20.6% |
Risk
XLK is the more resilient| Metric | IAG | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.1 | 1.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.33 | 1.25 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.05 | 1.94 |
| Max drawdown | -43.3% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -18.2% | -6.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 65.5% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, IAG or XLK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IAG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 62 against XLK's 59. The edge comes from value and quality. XLK 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 IAG or XLK the better buy right now?
IAG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor IAG over XLK?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. XLK leads Risk Resilience by 28 points; IAG leads Value by 25 points; XLK leads Momentum by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, IAG or XLK?
Analyst price targets imply +8.6% upside for IAG and not covered for XLK. 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 XLK?
IAG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IAG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 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 XLK?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 XLK?
XLK on the Momentum factor, by 6 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 XLK?
XLK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XLK on Risk Resilience, by 28 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 XLK?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is IAG's lead over XLK getting stronger or weaker?
IAG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-05, when IAG moved ahead of XLK.
What would change the IAG vs XLK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: XLK closes the Value gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to IAG's edge; XLK's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; 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 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate IAG's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about IAG and XLK?
IAG: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. XLK: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 XLK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.