COMPARE · Data as of August 27, 2026
BTU vs CCJ
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. BTU scored 13.0, CCJ scored 43.6 — 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
13
$29.44 · $3.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
30.6
CCJ leads
CCJ
Cameco Corporation
43.6
$106.96 · $46.6B
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 qualityCCJ66 / 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
66
14
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
5
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
29
CCJ is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
BTU
CCJ
-$192mF
FCF
$666mC+
-0.7%D+
Rev
+11.0%B
0.13A
D/E
0.17A-
0.9xA-
P/S
—
—
PEG
1.92C+
—
P/E
175.3xD
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
196% above
—
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~44%/yr
—
1-yr DCF upside
-74%
—
5-yr DCF upside
-66%
—
10-yr DCF upside
-49%
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
Why now
Thermal Coal · market cap $3.6b. Down 28% from 52-week high of $41.14 — deep drawdown territory. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $30.75 (implying +4% 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 (-$192m) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Currently unprofitable (margin -5.3%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. ROE -7% 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.
CCJCameco Corporation
Why now
Uranium · market cap $46.6b. Down 21% 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 $130.27 (implying +22% 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. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income — non-cash charges (depreciation, intangible amortization) are holding down GAAP earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Trailing P/E 175.3x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. P/S 18.5x 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 BTU and CCJ diverge
On the headline score the gap is 30.6 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 30.6 · CCJ 66.2CCJ +35.6
- ValueBTU 5.1 · CCJ 29.2CCJ +24.1
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.