Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. TX scored 33.2, OGC scored 74.6 — OGC leads.
Compare another set
TX
Ternium SA
Metals & Mining · Quality-Growth
33.2
$58.18 · $11.1B
Score gap
41.4
OGC leads
OGC
OceanaGold Corporation
Gold · Quality-Growth
74.6
$27.60 · $6.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestOGC7.3x
Fastest growthOGC+46.3%
Strongest balance sheetOGC0.02
Highest qualityOGC95 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueOGC-49%
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)
TX
stronger →← stronger
OGC
47
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
95
15
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
53
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
88
OGC is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
TX
OGC
—
FCF
$738mC+
-1.4%D+
Rev
+46.3%A
0.22A-
D/E
0.02A-
15.8xB+
P/E
7.3xA
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
TX
OGC
—
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
49% below
—
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-2%/yr
—
1-yr DCF upside
+54%
—
5-yr DCF upside
+98%
—
10-yr DCF upside
+182%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
TX
Why this score
Raising its dividend
OGC
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Cyclical growth
The companies
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.
OGCOceanaGold Corporation
Gold · $27.60 · beta 1.50
Why now
Gold · market cap $6.1b. Down 36% 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
Down 36% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.50 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 TX and OGC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 41.4 points in favor of OGC. The widest single difference is Quality, where OGC leads by 48.0 points.
QualityTX 46.9 · OGC 94.9OGC +48.0
GrowthTX 14.7 · OGC 50.0OGC +35.3
ValueTX 52.8 · OGC 87.5OGC +34.7
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 OGC or TX the better stock?
OGC scores higher: OGC 74.6, 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 OGC and TX differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where OGC leads by 48 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. OGC leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are OGC 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.