Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. IAG scored 70.6, AYA scored 70.4 — IAG leads.
Compare another set
IAG
IAMGOLD Corporation
Gold · Quality-Growth
70.6
$18.80 · $10.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.2
IAG leads
AYA
Aya Gold & Silver Inc.
Silver · Quality-Growth
70.4
$27.42 · $3.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestIAG9.5x
Fastest growthAYA+416.7%
Strongest balance sheetIAG0.12
Highest qualityAYA93 / 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)
IAG
stronger →← stronger
AYA
85
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
93
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
83
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
75
IAG and AYA split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
IAG
AYA
$1.6bC+
FCF
$88mC-
+74.7%A
Rev
+416.7%A
0.12A-
D/E
0.17B+
9.5xA-
P/E
35.6xC
13.52D
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
IAG
AYA
53% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
199% above
~-5%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~47%/yr
+66%
1-yr DCF upside
-74%
+113%
5-yr DCF upside
-67%
+199%
10-yr DCF upside
-53%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
IAG
Why this score
Durable high returns
Diluting shareholders
Cyclical growth
AYA
Why this score
Cyclical growth
Short track record
The companies
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.
AYAAya Gold & Silver Inc.
Silver · $27.42 · beta 1.68
Why now
Silver · market cap $3.9b. 11% off the 52-week high of $30.67. Revenue growing +417% — in hypergrowth territory.
Moat
Net margin 33% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 26% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Beta 1.68 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Trailing P/E 36x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 11.5x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
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 IAG and AYA diverge
The two are effectively level on the headline score. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityIAG 85.3 · AYA 92.6AYA +7.3
ValueIAG 82.6 · AYA 75.4IAG +7.2
GrowthIAG 50.0 · AYA 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 AYA the better stock?
IAG scores higher: IAG 70.6, AYA 70.4 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 AYA differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where AYA leads by 7 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are IAG and AYA 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.