Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. AUGO scored 58.2, GFI scored 72.6 — GFI leads.
Compare another set
AUGO
Aura Minerals Inc.
Gold · Quality-Growth
58.2
$91.26 · $7.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
14.4
GFI leads
GFI
Gold Fields Limited
Gold · Quality-Growth
72.6
$36.82 · $32.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestGFI7.5x
Fastest growthGFI+68.2%
Strongest balance sheetGFI0.29
Highest qualityGFI95 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueGFI-65%
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)
AUGO
stronger →← stronger
GFI
70
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
95
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
56
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
81
GFI is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
AUGO
GFI
$208mC
FCF
$2.8bB
+55.1%A
Rev
+68.2%A
1.00C
D/E
0.29B
25.8xC+
P/E
7.5xA
0.73A-
PEG
11.59D
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
AUGO
GFI
58% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
65% below
~27%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-9%/yr
-51%
1-yr DCF upside
+115%
-37%
5-yr DCF upside
+182%
-7%
10-yr DCF upside
+325%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
AUGO
Why this score
Cyclical growth
Short track record
GFI
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Cyclical growth
The companies
AUGOAura Minerals Inc.
Gold · $91.26 · beta 0.32
Why now
Gold · market cap $7.7b. 17% off the 52-week high of $110.32. Revenue growing +55% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.73 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $101.91 (implying +12% upside).
Moat
Net margin 23% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. 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
Hedge-book exposure — many commodity producers hedge forward production; if the hedge book is concentrated at prices well below spot, the upside the market expects is already locked away.
GFIGold Fields Limited
Gold · $36.82 · beta 0.64
Why now
Gold · market cap $32.8b. Down 40% from 52-week high of $61.64 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +68% — in hypergrowth territory. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $48.67 (implying +32% upside).
Moat
Net margin 39% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 59% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. 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 40% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Commodity exposure — earnings power tracks the price of the underlying commodity, not management execution. A 15-20% move in the commodity reprices the equity well before fundamentals catch up.
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 AUGO and GFI diverge
On the headline score the gap is 14.4 points in favor of GFI. The widest single difference is Quality, where GFI leads by 25.0 points.
QualityAUGO 69.8 · GFI 94.8GFI +25.0
ValueAUGO 56.4 · GFI 80.7GFI +24.3
GrowthAUGO 50.0 · GFI 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 GFI or AUGO the better stock?
GFI scores higher: GFI 72.6, AUGO 58.2 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 GFI and AUGO differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where GFI leads by 25 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. GFI also leads value, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are GFI and AUGO 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.