First off, full disclaimer. I'm long Kirkland Lake, and Mathieu is long both Alamos and Kirkland Lake. Mathieu just took a position in KL due to this recent dip. I took a position in Kirkland Lake after waiting 7 days after our addition of the company to our Bull List.
I'll start off by saying both companies, at least to historical numbers over the last half decade, are fairly cheap. Although Alamos is trading right in line with historical averages in terms of price to sales, it's trading at a forward price to earnings of 11.6, which is significantly lower than the 30 it typically trades at.
Kirkland Lake isn't AS cheap, but valuations are still very low relative to historical numbers. Its forward price to earnings of 9.7 is a 25% discount to historical averages and again, much like Alamos its price to sales is right in line historically.
We like both companies a lot. I mean clearly you can see with the positions owned. However, both present somewhat of a unique situation.
Alamos in my opinion is a higher risk growth play. The company has two operating mines here in Canada and one in Mexico. It has four more mines in development right now.
Kirkland Lake is a much bigger, more stable gold play that a lot of investors are buying right now for dividend growth.
If we look towards 2020 guidances, Alamos expects to have 405,000 to 435,000 ounces mined in 2020, where Kirkland is anywhere from 1.3 to 1.4 million ounces. So, size and stability is a factor here.
It's impossible for us to know what stock is going to do better in that short of timeframe. But, I personally view Alamos as a higher risk growth play, while Kirkland is an excellent dividend growth option with some upside potential as well.
Hope this can help you with your decision!