SILV vs SQM Stock Comparison
SILV currently leads SQM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 71 vs 51. The clearest difference is quality, while SQM has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between SILV and SQM?
SILV leads the current stock comparison as SilverCrest Metals Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
SilverCrest Metals Inc. vs Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A.
SILV leads
SILV leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors SQM on target upside.
Stable: 3 of 5 evidence groups support SILV.
SilverCrest Metals Inc.
Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SILV over SQM, 71 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. SILV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while SQM holds the stronger value profile. Analyst target upside, however, currently favors SQM. 3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor SILV today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. SILV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 20 points over 30 sessions.
Compare SilverCrest Metals Inc. 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
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 SILV 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.
- Quality87 vs 60SILV +27
- Risk Resilience93 vs 71SILV +22
- Value44 vs 54SQM +10
3 of 5 evidence groups favor SILV. SILV’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; SQM keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
SILV's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SILV and SQM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SILV (SilverCrest Metals Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
SQM (Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations.
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
SILVSILV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SQMSQM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SQMSQM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
SILVSILV on Risk Resilience, by 22 points.
Analyst upside
SQMSQM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors SILV, analyst targets favor SQM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | SILV | SQM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -26.4% | +65.8% | SQM has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +24.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 4 | 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 5 covered evidence groups favor SILV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SILV | 71 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | SILVon balance | revenue growth 10.5% vs 40.3%; EPS growth 45.5% vs 80.5%; TTM ROE 30.1% vs 23.6%; gross margin 60.5% vs 42%; operating margin 53.6% vs 38.8% — SILV takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SQM | Value 44 vs 54 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | SILV | Risk Resilience 93 vs 71 |
| Analyst expectations | SQM | Target upside -26.4% vs 65.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SILV and SQM 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 wide at 20 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 SILV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SILV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SILV +20
- 71 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- SILV +21
- 71 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- SILV +22
- 71 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- SILV +19
- 76 vs 57
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.
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
Only SQM
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.09%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
SQM 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.68%, 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.
- 1SQM closes the Quality gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to SILV's edge.
- 2SQM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SILV starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
SILV leads on balance| Metric | SILV | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.5% | 40.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 45.5% | 80.5% |
| Gross margin | 60.5% | 42% |
| Operating margin | 53.6% | 38.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 30.1% | 23.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.84 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | SILV | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | — | -4.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | — | -14.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | — | -13.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | — | -31.2% |
| Year to date | — | -12% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | — | 35.1% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | SILV | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | — | 25 |
| ADX (14) | — | 38.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | — | -17.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | — | -21.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | — | 25.9% |
Risk
SILV is the more resilient| Metric | SILV | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | — | 0.98 |
| Sharpe ratio | — | 0.83 |
| Sortino ratio | — | 1.46 |
| Max drawdown | — | -37% |
| Current drawdown | — | -37% |
| Annualized volatility | — | 47.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | — | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SILV or SQM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SILV is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 71 against SQM's 51. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. SQM 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 SILV or SQM the better buy right now?
SILV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 3 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 SILV over SQM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SILV leads Quality by 27 points; SILV leads Risk Resilience by 22 points; SQM leads Value by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SILV or SQM?
Analyst price targets imply -26.4% upside for SILV and +65.8% for SQM, so the Street currently favors SQM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SILV. 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, SILV or SQM?
SQM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SQM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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, SILV 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, SILV or SQM?
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, SILV or SQM?
SILV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SILV on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 SILV more profitable than SQM?
SILV leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 60.5% vs 42%; operating margin 53.6% vs 38.8%; ttm roe 30.1% vs 23.6%.
Is SILV's lead over SQM getting stronger or weaker?
SILV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 20 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 SILV vs SQM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SQM closes the Quality gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to SILV's edge; SQM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SILV starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 SILV and SQM?
SILV: No active signals. SQM: 1 bullish / 4 bearish, 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. On SQM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare SILV 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.