COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
FSM vs OGC
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. FSM scored 70.2, OGC scored 76.8 — OGC leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. OGC'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.
70.2
$11.90 · $3.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
6.6
OGC leads
OGC
OceanaGold Corporation
76.8
$30.72 · $6.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestOGC8.1x
- Fastest growthOGC+46.3%
- Strongest balance sheetOGC0.02
- Highest qualityOGC95 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueFSM-55%
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
OGC
82
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
95
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
84
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
95
OGC is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
FSM
OGC
$613mC+
FCF
$765mC+
+39.8%A
Rev
+46.3%A
0.13A-
D/E
0.02A
10.0xA
P/E
8.1xA
0.44A
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
FSM
OGC
55% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
46% below
~-8%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-1%/yr
+78%
1-yr DCF upside
+43%
+124%
5-yr DCF upside
+86%
+205%
10-yr DCF upside
+169%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
FSM
Why this score
- Cyclical growth
OGC
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Cyclical growth
The companies
FSMFortuna Mining Corp.
Why now
Gold · market cap $3.5b. 14% off the 52-week high of $13.85. Revenue growing +40% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.44 — 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% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — 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, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Beta 2.12 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.
OGCOceanaGold Corporation
Why now
Gold · market cap $6.8b. Down 29% 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
OGC leads FSM by 6.6 points (76.8 to 70.2), its sharpest advantage coming in D/E (grade A). A contrarian could still prefer FSM, which trades about 55% below our DCF fair value — a margin of safety the score doesn't reward. Note they play different roles — FSM screens as value, OGC screens as growth — so the model rewards different traits for each.
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
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 OGC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 6.6 points in favor of OGC. The widest single difference is Quality, where OGC leads by 13.0 points.
- QualityFSM 82.5 · OGC 95.5OGC +13.0
- ValueFSM 83.9 · OGC 95.0OGC +11.1
- GrowthFSM 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.