COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
CF vs FSM
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CF scored 74.5, FSM scored 70.2 — CF leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. CF's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but FSM'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.
CF
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
74.5
$125.70 · $19.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
4.3
CF leads
FSM
Fortuna Mining Corp.
70.2
$11.90 · $3.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestCF9.3x
- Fastest growthFSM+39.8%
- Strongest balance sheetFSM0.13
- Highest qualityCF91 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueFSM-55%
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)
CF
stronger →← stronger
FSM
91
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
82
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
91
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
84
CF is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CF
FSM
$1.9bC+
FCF
$613mC+
+20.0%A-
Rev
+39.8%A
0.41B
D/E
0.13A-
9.3xA
P/E
10.0xA
0.40A
PEG
0.44A
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
CF
FSM
18% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
55% below
~-6%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-8%/yr
+36%
1-yr DCF upside
+78%
+22%
5-yr DCF upside
+124%
+6%
10-yr DCF upside
+205%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CF
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Raising its dividend
- Cyclical growth
FSM
Why this score
- Cyclical growth
The companies
CFCF Industries Holdings, Inc.
Why now
Agricultural Inputs · market cap $19.0b. 11% off the 52-week high of $141.96. Revenue growing +20%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.40 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 19 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $125.77 (implying +0% upside).
Moat
Net margin 32% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 43% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
FSMFortuna Mining Corp.
Why now
Gold · market cap $3.5b. 14% off the 52-week high of $13.85. Revenue growing +40% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.44 — paying under fair value for the growth rate.
Moat
Net margin 33% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 18% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 197% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Beta 2.12 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Production-cost sensitivity — top-quartile cost producers generate cash through the cycle while marginal producers burn it; watch the cost-per-unit trend, not just headline revenue.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
CF leads FSM by 4.3 points (74.5 to 70.2). A contrarian could still prefer FSM, which trades about 55% below our DCF fair value — a margin of safety the score doesn't reward. All screen as value-type names but sit in different sectors (Agricultural Inputs versus Gold), so their grades are relative to different peer sets.
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
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 CF and FSM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 4.3 points in favor of CF. The widest single difference is Quality, where CF leads by 8.8 points.
- QualityCF 91.3 · FSM 82.5CF +8.8
- ValueCF 90.6 · FSM 83.9CF +6.7
- GrowthCF 50.0 · FSM 50.0level
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.