NEM vs OR Stock Comparison
NEM currently leads OR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 61 vs 55. The clearest difference is value.
What is the main difference between NEM and OR?
NEM leads the current stock comparison as Newmont Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Newmont Corporation vs OR Royalties Inc.
NEM leads
NEM leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support NEM, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Newmont Corporation
OR Royalties Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NEM over OR, 61 versus 55 as of Oct 21, 2026. NEM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum. NEM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NEM today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. NEM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Newmont Corporation and OR Royalties Inc. 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 NEM and OR 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.
- Value51 vs 34NEM +17
- Momentum52 vs 45NEM +7
- Quality77 vs 80Even
- Risk Resilience62 vs 63Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor NEM. NEM’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum.
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 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
NEM's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NEM and OR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NEM (Newmont Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
OR (OR Royalties Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals.
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
NEMNEM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
OROR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NEMNEM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
NEMNEM on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
NEMNEM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
NEMNEM 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 | NEM | OR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +21.2% | +15.9% | NEM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +45.8% | +27.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | NEM | OR |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | -0.78% | 7.15% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.040 | $0.149 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.000 | $0.210 |
| Years increased | 1 | 4 |
| No cut in window | No (2) | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
OR grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 7.15% 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NEM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NEM | 61 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | ORon balance | revenue growth -51.9% vs -3.5%; EPS growth -31.2% vs -15.4%; TTM ROE 25% vs 21.8%; gross margin 54.5% vs 84.5%; operating margin 51.4% vs 76.3% — OR takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NEM | Value 51 vs 34 |
| Technicals | NEM | Price vs 50-day -3.8% vs -1.9%; vs 200-day 4% vs -5.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 62 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | NEM | Target upside 21.2% vs 15.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NEM and OR 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 6 points.
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 NEM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20NEM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NEM +6
- 61 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- NEM +4
- 57 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- NEM +4
- 57 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- NEM +6
- 68 vs 62
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only NEM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.45%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only OR
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.90%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
OR is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +0.32%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.09%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1OR closes the Value gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to NEM's edge.
- 2OR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3NEM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
OR leads on balance| Metric | NEM | OR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -51.9% | -3.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -31.2% | -15.4% |
| Gross margin | 54.5% | 84.5% |
| Operating margin | 51.4% | 76.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 25% | 21.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.15 | 0.15 |
Performance
NEM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | NEM | OR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.1% | 0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.2% | -7.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 22% | 17.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.9% | -12% |
| Year to date | 17% | -1.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 23% | -13.1% |
Technicals
NEM has the stronger structure| Metric | NEM | OR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53 | 53.2 |
| ADX (14) | 14.2 | 11.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.8% | -1.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4% | -5.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32.8% | 34.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | NEM | OR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.69 | 1.52 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.68 | -0.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.99 | -0.03 |
| Max drawdown | -32.4% | -41.2% |
| Current drawdown | -13.6% | -27.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 49.1% | 46.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.2% | -4.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NEM or OR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NEM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 61 against OR's 55. The edge comes from value 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 NEM or OR the better buy right now?
NEM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 NEM over OR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NEM leads Value by 17 points; NEM leads Momentum by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NEM or OR?
Analyst price targets imply +21.2% upside for NEM and +15.9% for OR, so the Street currently favors NEM. 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, NEM or OR?
NEM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NEM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 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, NEM or OR?
OR 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, NEM or OR?
NEM on the Momentum factor, by 7 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, NEM or OR?
NEM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NEM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is NEM more profitable than OR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 54.5% vs 84.5%; operating margin 51.4% vs 76.3%; ttm roe 25% vs 21.8%. NEM leads on one measure and OR 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 NEM's lead over OR getting stronger or weaker?
NEM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 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 NEM vs OR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: OR closes the Value gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to NEM's edge; OR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; NEM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 NEM and OR?
NEM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. OR: 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 NEM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On OR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare NEM and OR 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.