Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. HL scored 67.6, OGC scored 74.6 — OGC 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
7.0
OGC leads
OGC
OceanaGold Corporation
Gold · Quality-Growth
74.6
$27.60 · $6.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestOGC7.3x
Fastest growthHL+53.0%
Strongest balance sheetHL0.01
Highest qualityOGC95 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueOGC-49%
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
OGC
84
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
95
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
73
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
88
OGC is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
HL
OGC
$484mC
FCF
$738mC+
+53.0%A
Rev
+46.3%A
0.01A
D/E
0.02A-
21.6xB
P/E
7.3xA
5.64D
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
HL
OGC
33% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
49% below
~23%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-2%/yr
-42%
1-yr DCF upside
+54%
-25%
5-yr DCF upside
+98%
+8%
10-yr DCF upside
+182%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
HL
Why this score
Cyclical growth
OGC
Why this score
Raising its dividend
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.
OGCOceanaGold Corporation
Gold · $27.60 · beta 1.50
Why now
Gold · market cap $6.1b. Down 36% 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
Down 36% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.50 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
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 OGC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 7.0 points in favor of OGC. The widest single difference is Value, where OGC leads by 14.2 points.
ValueHL 73.3 · OGC 87.5OGC +14.2
QualityHL 84.4 · OGC 94.9OGC +10.5
GrowthHL 50.0 · OGC 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 OGC or HL the better stock?
OGC scores higher: OGC 74.6, 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 OGC and HL differ most?
The widest gap is value, where OGC leads by 14 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. OGC also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are OGC 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.