Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. FSM scored 69.4, AU scored 71.7 — AU leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. AU's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but FSM'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.
FSM
Fortuna Mining Corp.
Gold · Quality-Growth
69.4
$10.92 · $3.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
2.3
AU leads
AU
AngloGold Ashanti plc
Gold · Quality-Growth
71.7
$94.16 · $47.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestFSM9.3x
Fastest growthAU+70.8%
Strongest balance sheetFSM0.13
Highest qualityAU91 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueAU-64%
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)
FSM
stronger →← stronger
AU
81
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
91
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
82
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
81
FSM and AU split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
FSM
AU
$613mC+
FCF
$4.5bB
+39.8%A
Rev
+70.8%A
0.13B+
D/E
0.17B+
9.3xA-
P/E
12.6xA-
0.38A
PEG
0.78A-
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
FSM
AU
63% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
64% below
~-11%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-9%/yr
+111%
1-yr DCF upside
+110%
+170%
5-yr DCF upside
+174%
+279%
10-yr DCF upside
+311%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
FSM
Why this score
Cyclical growth
AU
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Cyclical growth
The companies
FSMFortuna Mining Corp.
Gold · $10.92 · beta 2.18
Why now
Gold · market cap $3.2b. Down 21% from 52-week high of $13.85 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +40% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.38 — 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% is above 15% — 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.
Risk
Beta 2.18 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.
AUAngloGold Ashanti plc
Gold · $94.16 · beta 0.74
Why now
Gold · market cap $47.6b. Down 27% from 52-week high of $129.14 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +71% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.78 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 8 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $117.50 (implying +25% upside).
Moat
Net margin 32% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 45% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 117% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
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
The model slightly favors FSM (69.7) over AU (69.2) due to its stronger Value pillar (83 vs 73) and superior PEG grade (A vs A-). However, a contrarian might prefer AU for its higher Quality pillar (91 vs 82) and less pessimistic implied growth rate of -3% versus FSM's -10%. Both gold miners carry the model signal of cyclical growth.
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 FSM and AU diverge
On the headline score the gap is 2.3 points in favor of AU. The widest single difference is Quality, where AU leads by 9.6 points.
QualityFSM 81.4 · AU 91.0AU +9.6
ValueFSM 82.2 · AU 81.1level
GrowthFSM 50.0 · AU 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 AU or FSM the better stock?
AU scores higher: AU 71.7, FSM 69.4 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 AU and FSM differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where AU leads by 10 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 AU and FSM 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.