Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. IAG scored 70.6, TX scored 33.2 — IAG leads.
Compare another set
IAG
IAMGOLD Corporation
Gold · Quality-Growth
70.6
$18.80 · $10.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
37.4
IAG leads
TX
Ternium SA
Metals & Mining · Quality-Growth
33.2
$58.18 · $11.1B
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)
IAG
stronger →← stronger
TX
85
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
47
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
15
83
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
53
IAG is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
IAG
TX
$1.6bC+
FCF
—
+74.7%A
Rev
-1.4%D+
0.12A-
D/E
0.22A-
9.5xA-
P/E
15.8xB+
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
TX
53% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
—
~-5%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
—
+66%
1-yr DCF upside
—
+113%
5-yr DCF upside
—
+199%
10-yr DCF upside
—
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
TX
Why this score
Raising its dividend
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.
TXTernium SA
Metals & Mining · $58.18 · beta 1.07
Why now
Metals & Mining · market cap $11.1b. Trading near 52-week high of $59.32 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety.
Moat
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
Trading within 2% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Net margin 4.4% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 6% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
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 TX diverge
On the headline score the gap is 37.4 points in favor of IAG. The widest single difference is Quality, where IAG leads by 38.4 points.
QualityIAG 85.3 · TX 46.9IAG +38.4
GrowthIAG 50.0 · TX 14.7IAG +35.3
ValueIAG 82.6 · TX 52.8IAG +29.8
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 TX the better stock?
IAG scores higher: IAG 70.6, TX 33.2 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 TX differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where IAG leads by 38 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. IAG leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are IAG and TX 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.