SQM vs WPM Stock Comparison
SQM currently leads WPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 51 vs 47. The clearest difference is value, while WPM has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between SQM and WPM?
SQM leads the current stock comparison as Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A. vs Wheaton Precious Metals Corp.
SQM leads
SQM leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support SQM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A.
Wheaton Precious Metals Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SQM over WPM, 51 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. SQM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while WPM holds the stronger quality profile. SQM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SQM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. SQM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A. and Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. 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 SQM 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.
- Value54 vs 29SQM +25
- Risk Resilience67 vs 46SQM +21
- Quality60 vs 80WPM +20
- Momentum26 vs 31WPM +5
5 of 6 evidence groups favor SQM. SQM’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; WPM keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
SQM's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SQM and WPM 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 value and risk resilience.
WPM (Wheaton Precious Metals Corp.): the counter-case, on quality, momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 39.1% against 33%.
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
SQMSQM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 points.
Momentum
WPMWPM on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
SQMSQM on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 | SQM | WPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +77.3% | +41.4% | SQM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +24.8% | +18.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | SQM | WPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | -23.08% | 9.46% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.446 | $0.420 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.120 | $0.660 |
| Years increased | 2 | 4 |
| No cut in window | No (3) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #114 |
WPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.46% a year against SQM's -23.08%. WPM never reduced its regular dividend in the window; SQM did in 3 years. They are ranked in different cohorts — variable-dividend payers and US dividend-paying corporations — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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
5 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 | SQM | 51 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | SQMon balance | revenue growth 40.3% vs 4.5%; EPS growth 80.5% vs -4.8%; TTM ROE 23.6% vs 23%; gross margin 42% vs 77.3%; operating margin 38.8% vs 72.8% — SQM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SQM | Value 54 vs 29 |
| Technicals | WPM | Price vs 50-day -20.6% vs -18.4%; vs 200-day -22.3% vs -5.5% |
| Risk Resilience | SQM | Risk Resilience 67 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | SQM | Target upside 77.3% vs 41.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SQM and WPM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28SQM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SQM +4
- 51 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- SQM +6
- 51 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- SQM +4
- 50 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- WPM +4
- 56 vs 60
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 28 when SQM moved ahead of WPM.
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, conflicted
Only SQM
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (10.25%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only WPM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.68%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.79%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.05%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -5.42%, 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.
- 1WPM closes the Value gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to SQM's edge.
- 2WPM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3SQM'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
SQM leads on balance| Metric | SQM | WPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 40.3% | 4.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 80.5% | -4.8% |
| Gross margin | 42% | 77.3% |
| Operating margin | 38.8% | 72.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 23.6% | 23% |
| Debt to equity | 0.84 | 0.2 |
Performance
WPM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | SQM | WPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.9% | -4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.1% | -5.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -13.9% | 11.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -35.2% | 1.3% |
| Year to date | -14.3% | 7.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 29.4% | 29% |
Technicals
WPM has the stronger structure| Metric | SQM | WPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 30.8 | 39 |
| ADX (14) | 40.7 | 27.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -20.6% | -18.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -22.3% | -5.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33% | 39.1% |
Risk
SQM is the more resilient| Metric | SQM | WPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1 | 1.94 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.74 | 0.74 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.31 | 1.06 |
| Max drawdown | -40.9% | -37.6% |
| Current drawdown | -38.2% | -23.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.5% | 50.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -5.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SQM or WPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SQM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 51 against WPM's 47. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. WPM is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 SQM or WPM the better buy right now?
SQM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SQM over WPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SQM leads Value by 25 points; SQM leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; WPM leads Quality by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SQM or WPM?
Analyst price targets imply +77.3% upside for SQM and +41.4% for WPM, 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, SQM or WPM?
SQM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SQM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 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, SQM or WPM?
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, SQM or WPM?
WPM on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, SQM or WPM?
SQM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SQM on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 SQM more profitable than WPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 42% vs 77.3%; operating margin 38.8% vs 72.8%; ttm roe 23.6% vs 23%. SQM leads on one measure and WPM 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 SQM's lead over WPM getting stronger or weaker?
SQM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-28, when SQM moved ahead of WPM.
What would change the SQM vs WPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WPM closes the Value gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to SQM's edge; WPM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; SQM'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 SQM and WPM?
SQM: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. WPM: 1 bullish / 1 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 SQM is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare SQM 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.