AEM vs WPM Stock Comparison
Compare AEM and WPM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AEM and WPM?
AEM leads the current stock comparison as Agnico Eagle Mines Limited, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Agnico Eagle Mines Limited vs Wheaton Precious Metals Corp.
AEM leads
AEM leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support AEM, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Agnico Eagle Mines Limited
Wheaton Precious Metals Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AEM over WPM, 58 versus 53 as of Sep 11, 2026. AEM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while WPM holds the stronger momentum profile. AEM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AEM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. AEM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Agnico Eagle Mines 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 AEM 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.
- Value47 vs 29AEM +18
- Momentum43 vs 58WPM +15
- Risk Resilience56 vs 41AEM +15
- Quality81 vs 80Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor AEM. AEM’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; WPM 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 -8
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
No new signals fired.
AEM's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AEM and WPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AEM (Agnico Eagle Mines Limited): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
WPM (Wheaton Precious Metals Corp.): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, technicals.
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
AEMAEM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WPMWPM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AEMAEM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
WPMWPM on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
AEMAEM on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
AEMAEM 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 | AEM | WPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.2% | +6.4% | AEM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +60.2% | +18.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AEM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AEM | 58 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | WPM | revenue growth -9.6% vs 4.5%; EPS growth -8.3% vs -4.8%; TTM ROE 22.6% vs 23%; gross margin 62.5% vs 77.3%; operating margin 58.3% vs 72.8% |
| Valuation | AEM | Value 47 vs 29 |
| Technicals | WPM | Price vs 50-day 16.2% vs 19.8%; vs 200-day 5.1% vs 16% |
| Risk Resilience | AEM | Risk Resilience 56 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | AEM | Target upside 16.2% vs 6.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AEM 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 5 points. (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)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 AEM.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10AEM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AEM +5
- 58 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- AEM +6
- 62 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- AEM +10
- 70 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- AEM +8
- 53 vs 45
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.46%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.03%)
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%)
AEM 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.87%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1WPM closes the Value gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to AEM's edge.
- 2WPM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AEM'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 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate AEM'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 | AEM | WPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9.6% | 4.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -8.3% | -4.8% |
| Gross margin | 62.5% | 77.3% |
| Operating margin | 58.3% | 72.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 22.6% | 23% |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | 0.2 |
Performance
WPM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | AEM | WPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | 0% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.2% | 11.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 29% | 40.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -11.7% | 1.6% |
| Year to date | 16% | 28.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 27.6% | 42.4% |
Technicals
WPM has the stronger structure| Metric | AEM | WPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.2 | 50.6 |
| ADX (14) | 34 | 34 |
| Price vs 50-day | 16.2% | 19.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.1% | 16% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 59.3% | 59.7% |
Risk
AEM is the more resilient| Metric | AEM | WPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.5 | 1.66 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.69 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.99 | 1.24 |
| Max drawdown | -45.9% | -37.6% |
| Current drawdown | -22% | -8.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.3% | 50.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -5.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AEM or WPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AEM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 58 against WPM's 53. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. WPM 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 AEM or WPM the better buy right now?
AEM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AEM over WPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AEM leads Value by 18 points; WPM leads Momentum by 15 points; AEM leads Risk Resilience by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AEM or WPM?
Analyst price targets imply +16.2% upside for AEM and +6.4% for WPM, so the Street currently favors AEM. 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, AEM or WPM?
AEM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AEM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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, AEM or WPM?
WPM 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, AEM or WPM?
WPM on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, AEM or WPM?
AEM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AEM on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 AEM more profitable than WPM?
WPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 62.5% vs 77.3%; operating margin 58.3% vs 72.8%; ttm roe 22.6% vs 23%.
Is AEM's lead over WPM getting stronger or weaker?
AEM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AEM 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 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to AEM's edge; WPM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AEM'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 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate AEM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AEM and WPM?
AEM: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. 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 AEM is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WPM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AEM 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.