Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. AU scored 71.7, TFPM scored 61.7 — AU leads.
Compare another set
AU
AngloGold Ashanti plc
Gold · Quality-Growth
71.7
$94.16 · $47.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
10.0
AU leads
TFPM
Triple Flag Precious Metals Corp.
Other Precious Metals & Mining · Quality-Growth
61.7
$31.21 · $6.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestAU12.6x
Fastest growthAU+70.8%
Strongest balance sheetTFPM0.10
Highest qualityAU91 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueAU-64%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
AU
stronger →← stronger
TFPM
91
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
69
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
81
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
68
AU is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
AU
TFPM
$4.5bB
FCF
$215mC
+70.8%A
Rev
+44.5%A
0.17B+
D/E
0.10A-
12.6xA-
P/E
15.7xB
0.78A-
PEG
1.24B
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
AU
TFPM
64% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
29% above
~-9%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~22%/yr
+110%
1-yr DCF upside
-40%
+174%
5-yr DCF upside
-22%
+311%
10-yr DCF upside
+14%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
AU
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Cyclical growth
TFPM
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Diluting shareholders
Cyclical growth
The companies
AUAngloGold Ashanti plc
Gold · $94.16 · beta 0.74
Why now
Gold · market cap $47.6b. Down 27% from 52-week high of $129.14 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +71% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.78 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 8 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $117.50 (implying +25% upside).
Moat
Net margin 32% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 45% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 117% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Reserve-replacement treadmill — every barrel or ounce extracted has to be replaced through exploration or acquisition; underspending on replacement reserves shows up in production declines 2-3 years out.
TFPMTriple Flag Precious Metals Corp.
Other Precious Metals & Mining · $31.21 · beta 0.31
Why now
Other Precious Metals & Mining · market cap $6.4b. Down 25% from 52-week high of $41.70 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +45% — in hypergrowth territory. 4 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $39.50 (implying +27% upside).
Moat
Net margin 84% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 20% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. 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
P/S 13.2x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard. Reserve-replacement treadmill — every barrel or ounce extracted has to be replaced through exploration or acquisition; underspending on replacement reserves shows up in production declines 2-3 years out.
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 AU and TFPM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 10.0 points in favor of AU. The widest single difference is Quality, where AU leads by 22.3 points.
QualityAU 91.0 · TFPM 68.7AU +22.3
ValueAU 81.1 · TFPM 68.4AU +12.7
GrowthAU 50.0 · TFPM 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 AU or TFPM the better stock?
AU scores higher: AU 71.7, TFPM 61.7 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 AU and TFPM differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where AU leads by 22 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. AU also leads value, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are AU and TFPM 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.