Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. AYA scored 70.4, EQX scored 47.0 — AYA leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. AYA's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but EQX'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.
AYA
Aya Gold & Silver Inc.
Silver · Quality-Growth
70.4
$27.42 · $3.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
23.4
AYA leads
EQX
Equinox Gold Corp.
Gold · Quality-Growth
47
$11.42 · $13.3B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestEQX23.8x
Fastest growthAYA+416.7%
Strongest balance sheetEQX0.13
Highest qualityAYA93 / 100
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)
AYA
stronger →← stronger
EQX
93
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
45
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
75
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
47
AYA is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
AYA
EQX
$88mC-
FCF
$126mC
+416.7%A
Rev
+99.1%A
0.17B+
D/E
0.13B+
35.6xC
P/E
23.8xC+
—
PEG
0.72A-
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
AYA
EQX
199% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
643% above
~47%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
>60%/yr
-74%
1-yr DCF upside
-90%
-67%
5-yr DCF upside
-87%
-53%
10-yr DCF upside
-81%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
AYA
Why this score
Cyclical growth
Short track record
EQX
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
Cyclical growth
The companies
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.
EQXEquinox Gold Corp.
Gold · $11.42 · beta 2.51
Why now
Gold · market cap $13.3b. Down 40% from 52-week high of $18.96 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +99% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.72 — paying under fair value for the growth rate.
Moat
Net margin 12% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. 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. Beta 2.51 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. ROE 4% 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.
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 AYA and EQX diverge
On the headline score the gap is 23.4 points in favor of AYA. The widest single difference is Quality, where AYA leads by 48.0 points.
QualityAYA 92.6 · EQX 44.6AYA +48.0
ValueAYA 75.4 · EQX 46.6AYA +28.8
GrowthAYA 50.0 · EQX 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 EQX the better stock?
AYA scores higher: AYA 70.4, EQX 47.0 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 EQX differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where AYA leads by 48 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. AYA also leads value, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are AYA and EQX 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.