Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LEU scored 22.6, CCJ scored 29.9 — CCJ leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. LEU's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but CCJ'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.
LEU
Centrus Energy Corp.
Uranium · Quality-Growth
22.6
$142.44 · $2.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
7.3
CCJ leads
CCJ
Cameco Corporation
Uranium · Quality-Growth
29.9
$88.06 · $38.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthCCJ+11.0%
Strongest balance sheetCCJ0.17
Highest qualityCCJ62 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
LEU
stronger →← stronger
CCJ
24
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
62
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
10
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
10
CCJ is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LEU
CCJ
-$164mF
FCF
$390mC
+8.5%B
Rev
+11.0%B
1.39C
D/E
0.17A-
6.1xC
P/S
—
2.87C
PEG
1.92C+
—
P/E
149.3xD
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
LEU
CCJ
—
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
488% above
—
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~58%/yr
—
1-yr DCF upside
-85%
—
5-yr DCF upside
-83%
—
10-yr DCF upside
-80%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
LEU
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
Cyclical growth
CCJ
Why this score
Cyclical growth
Foreign reporter (CAD)
The companies
LEUCentrus Energy Corp.
Uranium · $142.44 · beta 1.54
Why now
Uranium · market cap $2.9b. Down 69% from 52-week high of $464.25 — deep drawdown territory. 18 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $242.93 (implying +71% upside).
Moat
Higher-variance name — the moat signals on the quantitative card are modest, so the durability case rests on execution (turning current growth into durable earnings power) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than an entrenched competitive position.
Risk
Free cash flow is negative (-$164m) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Trailing P/E 66.6x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 69% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
CCJCameco Corporation
Uranium · $88.06 · beta 1.14
Why now
Uranium · market cap $38.4b. Down 35% from 52-week high of $135.24 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +11%, comfortably above the S&P median. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $126.78 (implying +44% upside).
Moat
Net margin 17% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. FCF converts 157% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 149.3x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 35% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. P/S 15.7x 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 LEU and CCJ diverge
On the headline score the gap is 7.3 points in favor of CCJ. The widest single difference is Quality, where CCJ leads by 37.7 points.
QualityLEU 24.3 · CCJ 62.0CCJ +37.7
ValueLEU 9.5 · CCJ 10.1level
GrowthLEU 50.0 · CCJ 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 CCJ or LEU the better stock?
CCJ scores higher: CCJ 29.9, LEU 22.6 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 CCJ and LEU differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where CCJ leads by 38 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 CCJ and LEU 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.