KGC vs MAG Stock Comparison
KGC currently leads MAG in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 55. The clearest difference is quality, while MAG has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between KGC and MAG?
KGC leads the current stock comparison as Kinross Gold Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Kinross Gold Corporation vs MAG Silver Corp.
KGC leads
KGC leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 5 evidence groups support KGC, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Kinross Gold Corporation
MAG Silver Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KGC over MAG, 62 versus 55 as of Oct 21, 2026. KGC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while MAG holds the stronger risk resilience profile. 4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor KGC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. KGC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Kinross Gold Corporation and MAG Silver Corp. 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 KGC and MAG 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.
- Quality89 vs 40KGC +49
- Risk Resilience55 vs 100MAG +45
- Value56 vs 47KGC +9
4 of 5 evidence groups favor KGC. KGC’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; MAG keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
KGC's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — KGC and MAG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KGC (Kinross Gold Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
MAG (MAG Silver Corp.): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
MAGMAG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
KGCKGC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
MAGMAG on Risk Resilience, by 45 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 | KGC | MAG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +56.9% | -10.1% | KGC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +58.9% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 5 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 | 62 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | KGC | TTM ROE 35.7% vs 10.3% |
| Valuation | KGC | Value 56 vs 47 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | MAG | Risk Resilience 55 vs 100 |
| Analyst expectations | KGC | Target upside 56.9% vs -10.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of KGC and MAG 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 moderate at 7 points.
- 4 of 5 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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 KGC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20KGC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- KGC +7
- 62 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- KGC +5
- 60 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- KGC +2
- 57 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- KGC +14
- 70 vs 56
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
Only KGC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.58%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.03%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
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 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.
- 1MAG closes the Quality gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to KGC's edge.
- 2MAG generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 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
KGC leads on balance| Metric | KGC | MAG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -8.1% | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | 17.9% |
| Gross margin | 53.6% | 0% |
| Operating margin | 50.1% | 0% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 35.7% | 10.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.08 | 0 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | KGC | MAG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.9% | — |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -17.6% | — |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.5% | — |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -26.3% | — |
| Year to date | -16.1% | — |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -13% | — |
Technicals
Split| Metric | KGC | MAG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.1 | — |
| ADX (14) | 27.2 | — |
| Price vs 50-day | -13% | — |
| Price vs 200-day | -19% | — |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 57.9% | — |
Risk
MAG is the more resilient| Metric | KGC | MAG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.85 | — |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.1 | — |
| Sortino ratio | 0.13 | — |
| Max drawdown | -41.6% | — |
| Current drawdown | -37.9% | — |
| Annualized volatility | 54.9% | — |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.2% | — |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, KGC or MAG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KGC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against MAG's 55. The edge comes from quality and value. MAG 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 KGC or MAG the better buy right now?
KGC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 5 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 KGC over MAG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. KGC leads Quality by 49 points; MAG leads Risk Resilience by 45 points; KGC leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, KGC or MAG?
Analyst price targets imply +56.9% upside for KGC and -10.1% for MAG, 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, KGC or MAG?
KGC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. KGC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, KGC or MAG?
MAG 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, KGC or MAG?
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, KGC or MAG?
MAG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MAG on Risk Resilience, by 45 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 KGC more profitable than MAG?
KGC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 53.6% vs 0%; operating margin 50.1% vs 0%; ttm roe 35.7% vs 10.3%.
Is KGC's lead over MAG getting stronger or weaker?
KGC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the KGC vs MAG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MAG closes the Quality gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to KGC's edge; MAG generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; 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 KGC and MAG?
KGC: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. MAG: No active signals. 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 KGC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare KGC and MAG 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.