CCJ vs DNN Stock Comparison
Compare CCJ and DNN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CCJ and DNN?
CCJ leads the current stock comparison as Cameco Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cameco Corporation vs Denison Mines Corp.
CCJ leads
CCJ leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 17 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CCJ, and its lead is narrowing.
Cameco Corporation
Denison Mines Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CCJ over DNN, 44 versus 33 as of Sep 6, 2026. CCJ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while DNN holds the stronger momentum profile. CCJ also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CCJ today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. CCJ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cameco Corporation and Denison Mines Corp. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare CCJ and DNN against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Quality30%45 vs 0CCJ +45
- Risk Resilience15%63 vs 36CCJ +27
- Momentum25%56 vs 68DNN +12
- Value30%24 vs 34DNN +10
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CCJ. CCJ’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; DNN keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
CCJ's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CCJ and DNN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CCJ (Cameco Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
DNN (Denison Mines Corp.): the counter-case, on momentum, value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 63.9% against 45.7%.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
CCJCCJ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
DNNDNN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
DNNDNN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
DNNDNN on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
CCJCCJ on Risk Resilience, by 27 points.
Analyst upside
CCJCCJ on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | CCJ | DNN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +26.1% | +24.3% | CCJ has more room |
| Target dispersion | +61.4% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CCJ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CCJ | 44 vs 33 |
| Fundamentals | CCJon balance | revenue growth -3.7% vs -34.9%; EPS growth -81.3% vs 121.8%; TTM ROE 5.1% vs -83.5%; gross margin 27.6% vs -14.1%; operating margin 14.3% vs -21% — CCJ takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | DNN | Value 24 vs 34 |
| Technicals | DNN | Price vs 50-day 5.6% vs 8.4%; vs 200-day -4.4% vs 1.8% |
| Risk Resilience | CCJ | Risk Resilience 63 vs 36 |
| Analyst expectations | CCJ | Target upside 26.1% vs 24.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CCJ and DNN and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 11 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on CCJ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5CCJ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CCJ +11
- 44 vs 33
- 7 sessions ago
- CCJ +13
- 44 vs 31
- 30 sessions ago
- CCJ +17
- 49 vs 32
- 90 sessions ago
- CCJ +10
- 38 vs 28
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (10.46%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.96%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.45%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.07%)
DNN is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.12%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.29%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1DNN closes the Quality gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCJ's edge.
- 2DNN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CCJ starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate CCJ's advantage entirely.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
CCJ leads on balance| Metric | CCJ | DNN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.7% | -34.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -81.3% | 121.8% |
| Gross margin | 27.6% | -14.1% |
| Operating margin | 14.3% | -21% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 5.1% | -83.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.14 | 2.38 |
Performance
DNN leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CCJ | DNN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.7% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.4% | 6.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.6% | 12.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.2% | -6.8% |
| Year to date | 10.1% | 28.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 30.5% | 45.5% |
Technicals
DNN has the stronger structure| Metric | CCJ | DNN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.1 | 57.2 |
| ADX (14) | 15.4 | 16.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.6% | 8.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.4% | 1.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 45.7% | 63.9% |
Risk
CCJ is the more resilient| Metric | CCJ | DNN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.37 | 2.2 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.7 | 0.9 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.21 | 1.5 |
| Max drawdown | -36.9% | -38.4% |
| Current drawdown | -24.9% | -21.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 55.5% | 61.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.1% | -6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CCJ or DNN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CCJ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 44 against DNN's 33. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. DNN is not without a case — it holds the better momentum profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is CCJ or DNN the better buy right now?
CCJ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CCJ over DNN?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CCJ leads Quality by 45 points; CCJ leads Risk Resilience by 27 points; DNN leads Momentum by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CCJ or DNN?
Analyst price targets imply +26.1% upside for CCJ and +24.3% for DNN, so the Street currently favors CCJ. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CCJ or DNN?
DNN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. DNN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, CCJ or DNN?
DNN on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, CCJ or DNN?
DNN on the Momentum factor, by 12 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, CCJ or DNN?
CCJ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CCJ on Risk Resilience, by 27 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CCJ more profitable than DNN?
CCJ leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 27.6% vs -14.1%; operating margin 14.3% vs -21%; ttm roe 5.1% vs -83.5%.
Is CCJ's lead over DNN getting stronger or weaker?
CCJ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CCJ vs DNN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DNN closes the Quality gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCJ's edge; DNN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CCJ starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate CCJ's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CCJ and DNN?
CCJ: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. DNN: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on CCJ is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On DNN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CCJ and DNN with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.