SBSW vs SQM Stock Comparison
Compare SBSW and SQM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between SBSW and SQM?
SQM leads the current stock comparison as Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Sibanye Stillwater Limited vs Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A.
SQM leads
SQM leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support SQM, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Sibanye Stillwater Limited
Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SQM over SBSW, 50 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. SQM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while SBSW holds the stronger momentum profile. SQM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SQM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. SQM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Sibanye Stillwater Limited and Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A. 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 SBSW and SQM 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.
- Quality26 vs 60SQM +34
- Momentum61 vs 28SBSW +33
- Risk Resilience50 vs 62SQM +12
- Value63 vs 54SBSW +9
3 of 6 evidence groups favor SQM. SQM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; SBSW keeps a meaningful momentum 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 -15
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -25
New signals
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
SQM's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SBSW and SQM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SQM (Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
SBSW (Sibanye Stillwater Limited): the counter-case, on momentum, value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 61.5% against 39.9%.
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
SQMSQM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SQMSQM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SBSWSBSW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
SBSWSBSW on the Momentum factor, by 33 points.
Lower downside
SQMSQM on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
SQMSQM 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 | SBSW | SQM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +13.6% | +39.9% | SQM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.6% | +24.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SQM. 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 | 49 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | SQM | revenue growth 30.3% vs 40.3%; EPS growth 57.5% vs 80.5%; TTM ROE -12.9% vs 23.6%; gross margin 27.5% vs 42%; operating margin 23.4% vs 38.8% |
| Valuation | SBSW | Value 63 vs 54 |
| Technicals | SBSW | Price vs 50-day 23.1% vs -4.7%; vs 200-day -1.2% vs -5% |
| Risk Resilience | SQM | Risk Resilience 50 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | SQM | Target upside 13.6% vs 39.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SBSW and SQM 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 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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)
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 SQM.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10SQM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SQM +1
- 49 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- SQM +7
- 53 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- SQM +5
- 52 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- SQM +3
- 40 vs 43
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 14 when SQM moved ahead of SBSW.
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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (24.89%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.28%)
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.05%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
SQM 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 down over the latest session (price -0.24%, AIQ -4 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -3.6%, AIQ -7 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.
- 1SBSW closes the Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to SQM's edge.
- 2SBSW's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SQM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate SQM'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
SQM leads on balance| Metric | SBSW | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 30.3% | 40.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 57.5% | 80.5% |
| Gross margin | 27.5% | 42% |
| Operating margin | 23.4% | 38.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -12.9% | 23.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.11 | 0.84 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | SBSW | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -10.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 17.4% | 1.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 38.4% | -2.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.6% | -6.9% |
| Year to date | -11.8% | 5.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 39.4% | 59.4% |
Technicals
SBSW has the stronger structure| Metric | SBSW | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.8 | 37.1 |
| ADX (14) | 36.5 | 22.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 23.1% | -4.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.2% | -5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 61.5% | 39.9% |
Risk
SQM is the more resilient| Metric | SBSW | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.55 | 1.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 1.33 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.27 | 2.32 |
| Max drawdown | -62.1% | -30.4% |
| Current drawdown | -40.5% | -23.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 67.6% | 47.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.7% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SBSW or SQM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SQM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 50 against SBSW's 49. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. SBSW 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 SBSW or SQM the better buy right now?
SQM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 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 SQM over SBSW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SQM leads Quality by 34 points; SBSW leads Momentum by 33 points; SQM leads Risk Resilience by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SBSW or SQM?
Analyst price targets imply +13.6% upside for SBSW and +39.9% for SQM, so the Street currently favors SQM. 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, SBSW or SQM?
SBSW is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SBSW 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, SBSW or SQM?
SQM 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, SBSW or SQM?
SBSW on the Momentum factor, by 33 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, SBSW or SQM?
SQM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SQM on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 SBSW more profitable than SQM?
SQM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 27.5% vs 42%; operating margin 23.4% vs 38.8%; ttm roe -12.9% vs 23.6%.
Is SQM's lead over SBSW getting stronger or weaker?
SQM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 1 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 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-14, when SQM moved ahead of SBSW.
What would change the SBSW vs SQM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SBSW closes the Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to SQM's edge; SBSW's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SQM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate SQM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about SBSW and SQM?
SBSW: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. SQM: 1 bullish / 3 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 SBSW is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On SQM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare SBSW and SQM 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.