Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CNR scored 45.6, CCJ scored 29.9 — CNR leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. CNR'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.
CNR
Core Natural Resources, Inc.
Thermal Coal · Quality-Growth
45.6
$88.46 · $4.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
15.7
CNR 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
CheapestCNR44.7x
Fastest growthCNR+92.4%
Strongest balance sheetCNR0.12
Highest qualityCCJ62 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueCNR-27%
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)
CNR
stronger →← stronger
CCJ
45
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
62
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
42
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
10
CNR and CCJ split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CNR
CCJ
$260mC
FCF
$390mC
+92.4%A
Rev
+11.0%B
0.12A
D/E
0.17A-
44.7xC
P/E
149.3xD
0.68A-
PEG
1.92C+
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
CNR
CCJ
27% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
488% above
~7%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~58%/yr
+6%
1-yr DCF upside
-85%
+37%
5-yr DCF upside
-83%
+102%
10-yr DCF upside
-80%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CNR
Why this score
Buying back stock
Cut its dividend
Cyclical growth
CCJ
Why this score
Cyclical growth
Foreign reporter (CAD)
The companies
CNRCore Natural Resources, Inc.
Thermal Coal · $88.46 · beta 0.25
Why now
Thermal Coal · market cap $4.4b. Down 23% from 52-week high of $114.80 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +92% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.68 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 4 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $109.50 (implying +24% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($643m) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Trailing P/E 45x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. Net margin 2.3% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 3% 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
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
CNR leads CCJ by 3.1 points (45.8 to 42.7), its sharpest advantage coming in PEG (grade A-). All screen as growth-type names but sit in different sectors (Uranium versus Thermal Coal), 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 CNR and CCJ diverge
On the headline score the gap is 15.7 points in favor of CNR. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueCNR 41.8 · CCJ 10.1CNR +31.7
QualityCNR 45.3 · CCJ 62.0CCJ +16.7
GrowthCNR 50.0 · CCJ 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 CNR or CCJ the better stock?
CNR scores higher: CNR 45.6, CCJ 29.9 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 CNR and CCJ differ most?
The widest gap is value, where CNR leads by 32 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are CNR and CCJ 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.