Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. IAG scored 70.6, KGC scored 68.2 — IAG leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. IAG's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but KGC'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.
IAG
IAMGOLD Corporation
Gold · Quality-Growth
70.6
$18.80 · $10.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
2.4
IAG leads
KGC
Kinross Gold Corporation
Gold · Quality-Growth
68.2
$23.74 · $28.2B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestKGC8.9x
Fastest growthIAG+74.7%
Strongest balance sheetKGC0.08
Highest qualityKGC91 / 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
KGC
85
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
91
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
83
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
70
IAG and KGC split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
IAG
KGC
$1.6bC+
FCF
$2.6bB
+74.7%A
Rev
+36.9%A
0.12A-
D/E
0.08A-
9.5xA-
P/E
8.9xA-
13.52D
PEG
1.12B+
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
KGC
53% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
13% below
~-5%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~5%/yr
+66%
1-yr DCF upside
+4%
+113%
5-yr DCF upside
+15%
+199%
10-yr DCF upside
+32%
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
KGC
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Cyclical growth
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.
KGCKinross Gold Corporation
Gold · $23.74 · beta 1.52
Why now
Gold · market cap $28.2b. Down 39% from 52-week high of $39.11 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +37% — in hypergrowth territory. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $33.85 (implying +43% upside).
Moat
Net margin 35% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 28% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 104% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 39% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.52 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 IAG and KGC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 2.4 points in favor of IAG. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueIAG 82.6 · KGC 70.0IAG +12.6
QualityIAG 85.3 · KGC 90.7KGC +5.4
GrowthIAG 50.0 · KGC 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 KGC the better stock?
IAG scores higher: IAG 70.6, KGC 68.2 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 KGC differ most?
The widest gap is value, where IAG leads by 13 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 KGC 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.