SBSW vs WPM Stock Comparison
Compare SBSW and WPM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between SBSW and WPM?
WPM leads the current stock comparison as Wheaton Precious Metals Corp., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Sibanye Stillwater Limited vs Wheaton Precious Metals Corp.
WPM leads
WPM leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors SBSW on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support WPM, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Sibanye Stillwater Limited
Wheaton Precious Metals Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WPM over SBSW, 53 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. WPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while SBSW holds the stronger value profile. WPM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors SBSW. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WPM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. WPM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Sibanye Stillwater Limited and Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. 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 WPM 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 80WPM +54
- Value63 vs 29SBSW +34
- Risk Resilience50 vs 41SBSW +9
- Momentum61 vs 58Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor WPM. WPM’s edge is concentrated in quality; SBSW keeps a meaningful value 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 -8
No new signals fired.
WPM's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SBSW and WPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WPM (Wheaton Precious Metals Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
SBSW (Sibanye Stillwater Limited): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, valuation.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
WPMWPM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SBSWSBSW on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SBSWSBSW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
SBSWSBSW on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
SBSWSBSW on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors WPM, analyst targets favor SBSW. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | SBSW | WPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +13.6% | +6.4% | SBSW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.6% | +18.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WPM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WPM | 49 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | WPMon balance | revenue growth 30.3% vs 4.5%; EPS growth 57.5% vs -4.8%; TTM ROE -12.9% vs 23%; gross margin 27.5% vs 77.3%; operating margin 23.4% vs 72.8% — WPM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SBSW | Value 63 vs 29 |
| Technicals | WPM | Price vs 50-day 23.1% vs 19.8%; vs 200-day -1.2% vs 16% |
| Risk Resilience | SBSW | Risk Resilience 50 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | SBSW | Target upside 13.6% vs 6.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SBSW and WPM 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 4 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 WPM.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10WPM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WPM +4
- 49 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- WPM +3
- 53 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- WPM +8
- 52 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- WPM +5
- 40 vs 45
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on May 8 when WPM 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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.20%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.88%)
WPM 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.08%, AIQ -3 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 54 points behind, the largest single contributor to WPM's edge.
- 2SBSW's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3WPM'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 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate WPM'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
WPM leads on balance| Metric | SBSW | WPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 30.3% | 4.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 57.5% | -4.8% |
| Gross margin | 27.5% | 77.3% |
| Operating margin | 23.4% | 72.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -12.9% | 23% |
| Debt to equity | 1.11 | 0.2 |
Performance
WPM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | SBSW | WPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 0% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 17.4% | 11.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 38.4% | 40.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.6% | 1.6% |
| Year to date | -11.8% | 28.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 39.4% | 42.4% |
Technicals
WPM has the stronger structure| Metric | SBSW | WPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.8 | 50.6 |
| ADX (14) | 36.5 | 34 |
| Price vs 50-day | 23.1% | 19.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.2% | 16% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 61.5% | 59.7% |
Risk
SBSW is the more resilient| Metric | SBSW | WPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.55 | 1.66 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.27 | 1.24 |
| Max drawdown | -62.1% | -37.6% |
| Current drawdown | -40.5% | -8.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 67.6% | 50.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.7% | -5.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SBSW or WPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WPM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 53 against SBSW's 49. The edge comes from quality. SBSW is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 WPM the better buy right now?
WPM 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 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor WPM over SBSW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WPM leads Quality by 54 points; SBSW leads Value by 34 points; SBSW leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SBSW or WPM?
Analyst price targets imply +13.6% upside for SBSW and +6.4% for WPM, so the Street currently favors SBSW. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors WPM. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, SBSW or WPM?
SBSW is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SBSW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 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 WPM?
SBSW 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 WPM?
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, SBSW or WPM?
SBSW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SBSW on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 WPM?
WPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 27.5% vs 77.3%; operating margin 23.4% vs 72.8%; ttm roe -12.9% vs 23%.
Is WPM's lead over SBSW getting stronger or weaker?
WPM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-05-08, when WPM moved ahead of SBSW.
What would change the SBSW vs WPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SBSW closes the Quality gap — currently 54 points behind, the largest single contributor to WPM's edge; SBSW's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; WPM'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 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate WPM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about SBSW and WPM?
SBSW: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. WPM: 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 SBSW is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WPM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare SBSW and WPM 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.