Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. HL scored 67.6, IAG scored 70.6 — IAG leads.
Compare another set
HL
Hecla Mining Company
Other Precious Metals & Mining · Quality-Growth
67.6
$17.07 · $11.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
3.0
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 sheetHL0.01
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)
HL
stronger →← stronger
IAG
84
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
85
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
73
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
83
IAG is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
HL
IAG
$484mC
FCF
$1.6bC+
+53.0%A
Rev
+74.7%A
0.01A
D/E
0.12A-
21.6xB
P/E
9.5xA-
5.64D
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
HL
IAG
33% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
53% below
~23%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-5%/yr
-42%
1-yr DCF upside
+66%
-25%
5-yr DCF upside
+113%
+8%
10-yr DCF upside
+199%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
HL
Why this score
Cyclical growth
IAG
Why this score
Durable high returns
Diluting shareholders
Cyclical growth
The companies
HLHecla Mining Company
Other Precious Metals & Mining · $17.07 · beta 1.37
Why now
Other Precious Metals & Mining · market cap $11.5b. Down 50% from 52-week high of $34.17 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +53% — in hypergrowth territory. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $23.07 (implying +35% upside).
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 22% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. 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
Down 50% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. 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.
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 HL and IAG diverge
On the headline score the gap is 3.0 points in favor of IAG. The widest single difference is Value, where IAG leads by 9.3 points.
ValueHL 73.3 · IAG 82.6IAG +9.3
QualityHL 84.4 · IAG 85.3level
GrowthHL 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 HL the better stock?
IAG scores higher: IAG 70.6, HL 67.6 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 HL differ most?
The widest gap is value, where IAG leads by 9 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 IAG and HL 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.