Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. HBM scored 57.1, IAG scored 70.6 — IAG leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. IAG's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but HBM'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.
HBM
Hudbay Minerals Inc.
Copper · Quality-Growth
57.1
$26.12 · $11.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
13.5
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
CheapestIAG9.5x
Fastest growthIAG+74.7%
Strongest balance sheetIAG0.12
Highest qualityIAG85 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueIAG-53%
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)
HBM
stronger →← stronger
IAG
75
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
85
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
50
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
83
IAG is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
HBM
IAG
$241mC
FCF
$1.6bC+
+9.4%B
Rev
+74.7%A
0.20B+
D/E
0.12A-
15.3xB+
P/E
9.5xA-
0.42A
PEG
13.52D
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
HBM
IAG
315% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
53% below
~51%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-5%/yr
-79%
1-yr DCF upside
+66%
-76%
5-yr DCF upside
+113%
-71%
10-yr DCF upside
+199%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
HBM
Why this score
Cyclical growth
IAG
Why this score
Durable high returns
Diluting shareholders
Cyclical growth
The companies
HBMHudbay Minerals Inc.
Copper · $26.12 · beta 2.33
Why now
Copper · market cap $11.6b. 19% off the 52-week high of $32.15. PEG 0.42 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $34.95 (implying +34% upside).
Moat
Net margin 26% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 17% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
Risk
Beta 2.33 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.
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 HBM and IAG diverge
On the headline score the gap is 13.5 points in favor of IAG. The widest single difference is Value, where IAG leads by 32.9 points.
ValueHBM 49.7 · IAG 82.6IAG +32.9
QualityHBM 74.9 · IAG 85.3IAG +10.4
GrowthHBM 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 HBM the better stock?
IAG scores higher: IAG 70.6, HBM 57.1 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 HBM differ most?
The widest gap is value, where IAG leads by 33 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. IAG also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are IAG and HBM 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.