Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EQX scored 47.0, BTG scored 71.5 — BTG leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. BTG's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but EQX'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.
EQX
Equinox Gold Corp.
Gold · Quality-Growth
47
$11.42 · $13.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
24.5
BTG leads
BTG
B2Gold Corp.
Gold · Quality-Growth
71.5
$5.25 · $6.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestBTG9.5x
Fastest growthEQX+99.1%
Strongest balance sheetBTG0.11
Highest qualityBTG79 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueBTG-57%
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)
EQX
stronger →← stronger
BTG
45
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
79
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
47
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
93
BTG is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EQX
BTG
$126mC
FCF
$923mC+
+99.1%A
Rev
+60.9%A
0.13B+
D/E
0.11A-
23.8xC+
P/E
9.5xA-
0.72A-
PEG
0.11A
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
EQX
BTG
643% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
57% below
>60%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-6%/yr
-90%
1-yr DCF upside
+80%
-87%
5-yr DCF upside
+132%
-81%
10-yr DCF upside
+233%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
EQX
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
Cyclical growth
BTG
Why this score
Cut its dividend
Cyclical growth
The companies
EQXEquinox Gold Corp.
Gold · $11.42 · beta 2.51
Why now
Gold · market cap $13.3b. Down 40% from 52-week high of $18.96 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +99% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.72 — paying under fair value for the growth rate.
Moat
Net margin 12% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. Mining moat is reserve quality + extraction cost per unit — top-quartile cost producers generate cash through the commodity cycle while marginal producers burn it.
Risk
Down 40% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.51 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. ROE 4% 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.
BTGB2Gold Corp.
Gold · $5.25 · beta 1.41
Why now
Gold · market cap $6.9b. 17% off the 52-week high of $6.29. Revenue growing +61% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.11 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 5 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $6.45 (implying +23% upside).
Moat
Net margin 21% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 23% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 114% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Beta 1.41 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Hedge-book exposure — many commodity producers hedge forward production; if the hedge book is concentrated at prices well below spot, the upside the market expects is already locked away.
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 EQX and BTG diverge
On the headline score the gap is 24.5 points in favor of BTG. The widest single difference is Value, where BTG leads by 46.2 points.
ValueEQX 46.6 · BTG 92.8BTG +46.2
QualityEQX 44.6 · BTG 78.7BTG +34.1
GrowthEQX 50.0 · BTG 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 BTG or EQX the better stock?
BTG scores higher: BTG 71.5, EQX 47.0 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 BTG and EQX differ most?
The widest gap is value, where BTG leads by 46 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. BTG also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are BTG and EQX 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.