Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EXK scored 21.6, IAG scored 70.6 — IAG leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. IAG's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but EXK'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.
EXK
Endeavour Silver Corp.
Silver · Quality-Growth
21.6
$8.65 · $2.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
49.0
IAG leads
IAG
IAMGOLD Corporation
Gold · Quality-Growth
70.6
$18.80 · $10.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthEXK+114.8%
Strongest balance sheetIAG0.12
Highest qualityIAG85 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueIAG-53%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
EXK
stronger →← stronger
IAG
32
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
85
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
6
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
83
IAG is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EXK
IAG
-$102mF
FCF
$1.6bC+
+114.8%A
Rev
+74.7%A
0.35B
D/E
0.12A-
5.5xC
P/S
—
0.63A-
PEG
13.52D
—
P/E
9.5xA-
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
EXK
IAG
—
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
53% below
—
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-5%/yr
—
1-yr DCF upside
+66%
—
5-yr DCF upside
+113%
—
10-yr DCF upside
+199%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
EXK
Why this score
Cyclical growth
IAG
Why this score
Durable high returns
Diluting shareholders
Cyclical growth
The companies
EXKEndeavour Silver Corp.
Silver · $8.65 · beta 2.48
Why now
Silver · market cap $2.6b. Down 43% from 52-week high of $15.15 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +115% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.63 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 3 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $15.50 (implying +79% upside).
Moat
Turnaround / out-of-favor name — GAAP-unprofitable for now, so the durability case is forward-looking: it rests on a recovery (margin normalization, a cyclical upturn or restructuring) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than on current reported results.
Risk
Free cash flow is negative (-$102m) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Currently unprofitable (margin -25.5%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. Down 43% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
IAGIAMGOLD Corporation
Gold · $18.80 · beta 2.35
Why now
Gold · market cap $10.7b. Down 24% from 52-week high of $24.87 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +75% — in hypergrowth territory. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $24.33 (implying +29% upside).
Moat
Net margin 31% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 32% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 139% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Beta 2.35 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 EXK and IAG diverge
On the headline score the gap is 49.0 points in favor of IAG. The widest single difference is Value, where IAG leads by 76.4 points.
ValueEXK 6.2 · IAG 82.6IAG +76.4
QualityEXK 32.3 · IAG 85.3IAG +53.0
GrowthEXK 50.0 · IAG 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 IAG or EXK the better stock?
IAG scores higher: IAG 70.6, EXK 21.6 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 IAG and EXK differ most?
The widest gap is value, where IAG leads by 76 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. IAG also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are IAG and EXK 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.