Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. FNV scored 57.9, BTG scored 71.5 — BTG leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. BTG's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but FNV'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.
FNV
Franco-Nevada Corporation
Gold · Quality-Growth
57.9
$244.85 · $47.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
13.6
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 growthFNV+63.7%
Strongest balance sheetFNV0.00
Highest qualityFNV81 / 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)
FNV
stronger →← stronger
BTG
81
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
79
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
48
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
93
FNV and BTG split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
FNV
BTG
$1.5bC+
FCF
$923mC+
+63.7%A
Rev
+60.9%A
0.00A
D/E
0.11A-
32.0xC
P/E
9.5xA-
2.38C
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
FNV
BTG
65% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
57% below
~22%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-6%/yr
-46%
1-yr DCF upside
+80%
-39%
5-yr DCF upside
+132%
-27%
10-yr DCF upside
+233%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
FNV
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Cyclical growth
BTG
Why this score
Cut its dividend
Cyclical growth
The companies
FNVFranco-Nevada Corporation
Gold · $244.85 · beta 0.94
Why now
Gold · market cap $47.2b. 14% off the 52-week high of $285.67. Revenue growing +64% — in hypergrowth territory. 9 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $286.97 (implying +17% upside).
Moat
Net margin 61% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 15% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 134% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 32x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 25.9x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard. Commodity exposure — earnings power tracks the price of the underlying commodity, not management execution. A 15-20% move in the commodity reprices the equity well before fundamentals catch up.
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 FNV and BTG diverge
On the headline score the gap is 13.6 points in favor of BTG. The widest single difference is Value, where BTG leads by 45.2 points.
ValueFNV 47.6 · BTG 92.8BTG +45.2
QualityFNV 81.5 · BTG 78.7level
GrowthFNV 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 FNV the better stock?
BTG scores higher: BTG 71.5, FNV 57.9 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 BTG and FNV differ most?
The widest gap is value, where BTG leads by 45 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. The other two pillars are close enough to call level, so this is the one place they genuinely separate.
How are BTG and FNV 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.