KGC vs NEM Stock Comparison
KGC currently leads NEM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 61. The clearest difference is quality, while NEM has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between KGC and NEM?
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 Newmont Corporation
KGC leads
KGC leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support KGC, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Kinross Gold Corporation
Newmont Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KGC over NEM, 62 versus 61 as of Oct 21, 2026. KGC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while NEM holds the stronger momentum profile. KGC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Kinross Gold Corporation and Newmont Corporation 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 NEM 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.
- Momentum39 vs 52NEM +13
- Quality89 vs 77KGC +12
- Risk Resilience55 vs 62NEM +7
- Value56 vs 51KGC +5
2 of 6 evidence groups favor KGC. KGC’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; NEM keeps a meaningful momentum 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
KGC's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — KGC and NEM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KGC (Kinross Gold Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
NEM (Newmont Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, technicals.
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
KGCKGC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
NEMNEM on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
NEMNEM on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 | NEM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +56.9% | +21.2% | KGC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +58.9% | +45.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | KGC | NEM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 15.81% | -0.78% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.060 | $1.040 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.125 | $1.000 |
| Years increased | 2 | 1 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | No (2) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
KGC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 15.81% a year against NEM's -0.78%.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 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 61 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth -8.1% vs -51.9%; TTM ROE 35.7% vs 25%; gross margin 53.6% vs 54.5%; operating margin 50.1% vs 51.4% |
| Valuation | KGC | Value 56 vs 51 |
| Technicals | NEM | Price vs 50-day -13% vs -3.8%; vs 200-day -19% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | NEM | Risk Resilience 55 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | KGC | Target upside 56.9% vs 21.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of KGC and NEM 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 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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)
- 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 KGC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20KGC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- KGC +1
- 62 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- KGC +3
- 60 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 57 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- KGC +2
- 70 vs 68
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 24 when NEM moved ahead of KGC.
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
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only NEM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.45%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.32%, 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.
- 1NEM closes the Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to KGC's edge.
- 2NEM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 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
Split| Metric | KGC | NEM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -8.1% | -51.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | -31.2% |
| Gross margin | 53.6% | 54.5% |
| Operating margin | 50.1% | 51.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 35.7% | 25% |
| Debt to equity | 0.08 | 0.15 |
Performance
NEM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | KGC | NEM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.9% | 1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -17.6% | -8.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.5% | 22% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -26.3% | 6.9% |
| Year to date | -16.1% | 17% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -13% | 23% |
Technicals
NEM has the stronger structure| Metric | KGC | NEM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.1 | 53 |
| ADX (14) | 27.2 | 14.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13% | -3.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -19% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 57.9% | 32.8% |
Risk
NEM is the more resilient| Metric | KGC | NEM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.85 | 1.69 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.1 | 0.68 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.13 | 0.99 |
| Max drawdown | -41.6% | -32.4% |
| Current drawdown | -37.9% | -13.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 54.9% | 49.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.2% | -5.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, KGC or NEM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KGC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against NEM's 61. The edge comes from quality and value. NEM 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 KGC or NEM the better buy right now?
KGC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 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 NEM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NEM leads Momentum by 13 points; KGC leads Quality by 12 points; NEM leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, KGC or NEM?
Analyst price targets imply +56.9% upside for KGC and +21.2% for NEM, 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 NEM?
KGC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. KGC 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, KGC or NEM?
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, KGC or NEM?
NEM 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, KGC or NEM?
NEM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NEM on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 NEM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 53.6% vs 54.5%; operating margin 50.1% vs 51.4%; ttm roe 35.7% vs 25%. KGC leads on one measure and NEM on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is KGC's lead over NEM getting stronger or weaker?
KGC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-09-24, when NEM moved ahead of KGC.
What would change the KGC vs NEM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NEM closes the Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to KGC's edge; NEM generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; 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 NEM?
KGC: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. NEM: 2 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 KGC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On NEM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare KGC and NEM 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.