COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
ORLA vs SLVM
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ORLA scored 65.2, SLVM scored 34.3 — ORLA leads.
Compare another set
ORLA
Orla Mining Ltd
65.2
$9.44 · $3.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
30.9
ORLA leads
SLVM
Sylvamo Corp
34.3
$36.79 · $1.5B
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestORLA13.1x
- Fastest growthORLA+207.6%
- Strongest balance sheetORLA0.42
- Highest qualityORLA81 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueORLA-35%
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)
ORLA
stronger →← stronger
SLVM
81
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
54
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
15
68
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
51
ORLA is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ORLA
SLVM
$359mC
FCF
$10mC-
+207.6%A
Rev
-9.3%D
0.42B
D/E
0.88B
13.1xA-
P/E
15.2xB+
1.34B
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
ORLA
SLVM
35% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
913% above
~-4%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~60%/yr
+40%
1-yr DCF upside
-89%
+53%
5-yr DCF upside
-90%
+72%
10-yr DCF upside
-92%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ORLA
Why this score
- Cyclical growth
- Short track record
SLVM
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
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.
SLVMSylvamo Corp
Why now
Paper & Forest · market cap $1.5b. Down 35% from 52-week high of $56.80 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue -9% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating.
Moat
ROE 11% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere.
Risk
Revenue contracting -9% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. 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. Net margin 3.1% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
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 ORLA and SLVM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 30.9 points in favor of ORLA. The widest single difference is Growth, where ORLA leads by 35.3 points.
- GrowthORLA 50.0 · SLVM 14.7ORLA +35.3
- QualityORLA 81.0 · SLVM 54.2ORLA +26.8
- ValueORLA 68.4 · SLVM 50.8ORLA +17.6
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.