COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
OGC vs ORLA
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. OGC scored 76.8, ORLA scored 65.2 — OGC leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. OGC's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but ORLA's are as of March 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
OGC
OceanaGold Corporation
76.8
$30.72 · $6.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
11.6
OGC leads
ORLA
Orla Mining Ltd
65.2
$9.44 · $3.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestOGC8.1x
- Fastest growthORLA+207.6%
- Strongest balance sheetOGC0.02
- Highest qualityOGC95 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueOGC-46%
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)
OGC
stronger →← stronger
ORLA
95
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
81
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
95
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
68
OGC is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
OGC
ORLA
$765mC+
FCF
$359mC
+46.3%A
Rev
+207.6%A
0.02A
D/E
0.42B
8.1xA
P/E
13.1xA-
—
PEG
1.34B
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
OGC
ORLA
46% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
35% below
~-1%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-4%/yr
+43%
1-yr DCF upside
+40%
+86%
5-yr DCF upside
+53%
+169%
10-yr DCF upside
+72%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
OGC
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Cyclical growth
ORLA
Why this score
- Cyclical growth
- Short track record
The companies
OGCOceanaGold Corporation
Why now
Gold · market cap $6.8b. Down 29% 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
Beta 1.51 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.
ORLAOrla Mining Ltd
Why now
Gold · market cap $3.5b. Down 57% from 52-week high of $21.98 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +208% — in hypergrowth territory.
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 42% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 142% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Down 57% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Jurisdictional + permitting risk — mining and extraction operations concentrate exposure to political stability, royalty regimes, and environmental review timelines that can stall production for years.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
ORLA slightly edges out OGC in the model's ranking (72.2 vs 72), driven by its superior Value pillar of 99. However, a contrarian could favor OGC for its significantly higher Quality pillar of 95 and less pessimistic implied growth of -3% per year. Investors should also note ORLA's signal of "Diluting shareholders."
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 OGC and ORLA diverge
On the headline score the gap is 11.6 points in favor of OGC. The widest single difference is Value, where OGC leads by 26.6 points.
- ValueOGC 95.0 · ORLA 68.4OGC +26.6
- QualityOGC 95.5 · ORLA 81.0OGC +14.5
- GrowthOGC 50.0 · ORLA 50.0level
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.