COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
ERO vs OGC
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ERO scored 63.5, OGC scored 76.8 — OGC leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. OGC's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but ERO'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.
ERO
Ero Copper Corp.
63.5
$39.42 · $4.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
13.3
OGC leads
OGC
OceanaGold Corporation
76.8
$31.01 · $6.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestOGC8.2x
- Fastest growthERO+67.1%
- Strongest balance sheetOGC0.02
- Highest qualityOGC95 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueOGC-46%
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)
ERO
stronger →← stronger
OGC
76
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
95
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
67
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
95
OGC is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ERO
OGC
$132mC
FCF
$765mC+
+67.1%A
Rev
+46.3%A
0.47B
D/E
0.02A
13.4xA-
P/E
8.2xA
0.64A-
PEG
—
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
ERO
OGC
119% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
46% below
~34%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-1%/yr
-62%
1-yr DCF upside
+41%
-54%
5-yr DCF upside
+84%
-40%
10-yr DCF upside
+166%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ERO
Why this score
- Cyclical growth
OGC
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Cyclical growth
The companies
EROEro Copper Corp.
Why now
Copper · market cap $4.1b. Trading near 52-week high of $39.80 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +67% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.64 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 3 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $35.87 (implying -9% upside).
Moat
Net margin 34% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 28% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Trading within 1% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Beta 1.59 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.
OGCOceanaGold Corporation
Why now
Gold · market cap $6.9b. Down 28% from 52-week high of $43.33 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +46% — in hypergrowth territory.
Moat
Net margin 35% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 37% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. 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
Beta 1.51 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Reserve-replacement treadmill — every barrel or ounce extracted has to be replaced through exploration or acquisition; underspending on replacement reserves shows up in production declines 2-3 years out.
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 ERO and OGC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 13.3 points in favor of OGC. The widest single difference is Value, where OGC leads by 27.7 points.
- ValueERO 67.3 · OGC 95.0OGC +27.7
- QualityERO 76.1 · OGC 95.5OGC +19.4
- GrowthERO 50.0 · OGC 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.