COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
FSM vs ORLA
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. FSM scored 70.2, ORLA scored 65.2 — FSM leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. ORLA's fundamentals are as of March 2026, but FSM's are as of December 2025 — a 3-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
5.0
FSM leads
ORLA
Orla Mining Ltd
65.2
$9.44 · $3.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestFSM10.0x
- Fastest growthORLA+207.6%
- Strongest balance sheetFSM0.13
- Highest qualityFSM82 / 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
ORLA
82
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
81
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
84
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
68
FSM is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
FSM
ORLA
$613mC+
FCF
$359mC
+39.8%A
Rev
+207.6%A
0.13A-
D/E
0.42B
10.0xA
P/E
13.1xA-
0.44A
PEG
1.34B
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
ORLA
55% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
35% below
~-8%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-4%/yr
+78%
1-yr DCF upside
+40%
+124%
5-yr DCF upside
+53%
+205%
10-yr DCF upside
+72%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
FSM
Why this score
- Cyclical growth
ORLA
Why this score
- Cyclical growth
- Short track record
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.
ORLAOrla Mining Ltd
Why now
Gold · market cap $3.5b. Down 57% from 52-week high of $21.98 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +208% — in hypergrowth territory.
Moat
Net margin 19% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 42% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 142% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Down 57% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Jurisdictional + permitting risk — mining and extraction operations concentrate exposure to political stability, royalty regimes, and environmental review timelines that can stall production for years.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
The model favors FSM (70.2) over ORLA (68.7) primarily due to FSM's superior valuation, reflected in its Value pillar of 84 and a strong PEG grade of A at 0.45. A contrarian might still prefer ORLA for its significantly higher revenue growth of +207.6%, though the model flags its "Diluting shareholders" signal as a caveat.
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 ORLA diverge
On the headline score the gap is 5.0 points in favor of FSM. The widest single difference is Value, where FSM leads by 15.5 points.
- ValueFSM 83.9 · ORLA 68.4FSM +15.5
- QualityFSM 82.5 · ORLA 81.0level
- GrowthFSM 50.0 · ORLA 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.