Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. BTU scored 13.9, CCJ scored 29.9 — CCJ leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. BTU's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but CCJ'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.
BTU
Peabody Energy Corporation
Thermal Coal · Quality-Growth
13.9
$25.13 · $3.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
16.0
CCJ leads
CCJ
Cameco Corporation
Uranium · Quality-Growth
29.9
$88.06 · $38.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthCCJ+11.0%
Strongest balance sheetBTU0.13
Highest qualityCCJ62 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
BTU
stronger →← stronger
CCJ
31
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
62
14
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
6
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
10
CCJ is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
BTU
CCJ
-$178mF
FCF
$390mC
-8.9%D
Rev
+11.0%B
0.13A
D/E
0.17A-
0.8xA
P/S
—
—
PEG
1.92C+
—
P/E
149.3xD
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
BTU
CCJ
—
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
488% above
—
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~58%/yr
—
1-yr DCF upside
-85%
—
5-yr DCF upside
-83%
—
10-yr DCF upside
-80%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
BTU
No notable signals flagged.
CCJ
Why this score
Cyclical growth
Foreign reporter (CAD)
The companies
BTUPeabody Energy Corporation
Thermal Coal · $25.13 · beta 0.32
Why now
Thermal Coal · market cap $3.1b. Down 39% from 52-week high of $41.14 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue -9% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $31.58 (implying +26% upside).
Moat
Turnaround / out-of-favor name — GAAP-unprofitable for now, so the durability case is forward-looking: it rests on a recovery (margin normalization, a cyclical upturn or restructuring) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than on current reported results.
Risk
Free cash flow is negative (-$178m) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Revenue contracting -9% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. Currently unprofitable (margin -4.6%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk.
CCJCameco Corporation
Uranium · $88.06 · beta 1.14
Why now
Uranium · market cap $38.4b. Down 35% from 52-week high of $135.24 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +11%, comfortably above the S&P median. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $126.78 (implying +44% upside).
Moat
Net margin 17% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. FCF converts 157% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 149.3x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 35% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. P/S 15.7x 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 BTU and CCJ diverge
On the headline score the gap is 16.0 points in favor of CCJ. The widest single difference is Growth, where CCJ leads by 35.9 points.
GrowthBTU 14.1 · CCJ 50.0CCJ +35.9
QualityBTU 31.4 · CCJ 62.0CCJ +30.6
ValueBTU 6.1 · CCJ 10.1CCJ +4.0
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 CCJ or BTU the better stock?
CCJ scores higher: CCJ 29.9, BTU 13.9 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 CCJ and BTU differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where CCJ leads by 36 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. CCJ leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are CCJ and BTU 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.