Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. AAUC scored 55.8, AYA scored 70.4 — AYA leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. AYA's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but AAUC's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
AAUC
Allied Gold Corporation
Gold · Quality-Growth
55.8
$20.56 · $2.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
14.6
AYA leads
AYA
Aya Gold & Silver Inc.
Silver · Quality-Growth
70.4
$27.42 · $3.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthAYA+416.7%
Strongest balance sheetAYA0.17
Highest qualityAYA93 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
AAUC
stronger →← stronger
AYA
58
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
93
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
60
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
75
AYA is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
AAUC
AYA
$106mC
FCF
$88mC-
+82.3%A
Rev
+416.7%A
0.31B
D/E
0.17B+
2.2xB
P/S
—
—
P/E
35.6xC
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
AAUC
AYA
0% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
199% above
~15%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~47%/yr
-24%
1-yr DCF upside
-74%
0%
5-yr DCF upside
-67%
+48%
10-yr DCF upside
-53%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
AAUC
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
Cyclical growth
Short track record
AYA
Why this score
Cyclical growth
Short track record
The companies
AAUCAllied Gold Corporation
Gold · $20.56 · beta 0.83
Why now
Gold · market cap $2.9b. Down 36% from 52-week high of $32.20 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +82% — in hypergrowth territory.
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income. Mining moat is reserve quality + extraction cost per unit — top-quartile cost producers generate cash through the commodity cycle while marginal producers burn it.
Risk
Down 36% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Net margin 0.2% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 1% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
AYAAya Gold & Silver Inc.
Silver · $27.42 · beta 1.68
Why now
Silver · market cap $3.9b. 11% off the 52-week high of $30.67. Revenue growing +417% — in hypergrowth territory.
Moat
Net margin 33% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 26% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Beta 1.68 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Trailing P/E 36x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 11.5x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where AAUC and AYA diverge
On the headline score the gap is 14.6 points in favor of AYA. The widest single difference is Quality, where AYA leads by 34.3 points.
QualityAAUC 58.3 · AYA 92.6AYA +34.3
ValueAAUC 59.6 · AYA 75.4AYA +15.8
GrowthAAUC 50.0 · AYA 50.0level
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is AYA or AAUC the better stock?
AYA scores higher: AYA 70.4, AAUC 55.8 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do AYA and AAUC differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where AYA leads by 34 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. AYA also leads value, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are AYA and AAUC scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.