COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
CSTM vs FSM
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CSTM scored 59.1, FSM scored 70.2 — FSM leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. CSTM's fundamentals are as of March 2026, but FSM's are as of December 2025 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
CSTM
Constellium SE
59.1
$27.04 · $3.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
11.1
FSM leads
FSM
Fortuna Mining Corp.
70.2
$12.07 · $3.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestCSTM7.0x
- Fastest growthFSM+39.8%
- Strongest balance sheetFSM0.13
- Highest qualityFSM82 / 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)
CSTM
stronger →← stronger
FSM
61
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
82
42
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
80
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
84
FSM is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CSTM
FSM
$171mC
FCF
$613mC+
+20.1%A-
Rev
+39.8%A
1.53D
D/E
0.13A-
7.0xA
P/E
10.1xA
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
CSTM
FSM
153% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
55% below
~23%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-7%/yr
-56%
1-yr DCF upside
+75%
-60%
5-yr DCF upside
+121%
-65%
10-yr DCF upside
+201%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CSTM
Why this score
- Buying back stock
FSM
Why this score
- Cyclical growth
The companies
CSTMConstellium SE
Why now
Aluminum · market cap $3.7b. Down 27% from 52-week high of $36.99 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +20%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.40 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 5 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $38.28 (implying +42% upside).
Moat
ROE 39% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Beta 1.57 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Net margin 4.9% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
FSMFortuna Mining Corp.
Why now
Gold · market cap $3.6b. 13% 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
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 CSTM and FSM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 11.1 points in favor of FSM. The widest single difference is Quality, where FSM leads by 21.7 points.
- QualityCSTM 60.8 · FSM 82.5FSM +21.7
- GrowthCSTM 42.4 · FSM 50.0FSM +7.6
- ValueCSTM 80.2 · FSM 83.9FSM +3.7
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.