Collective Mining Ltd. (CNL) scored on five pillars from its reported financial statements, and ranked against 77 Materials companies.
Collective Mining Ltd. (CNL) scores 2.9 out of 10 as of , computed from its reported financial statements. That reads as low quality. The reading rests on growth, and efficiency is what holds it back.
2 pillars, profitability and solvency, are unscored because the filings behind them carry too little to judge. Each is shown as a dash rather than a zero, and the overall score is the weighted average of what could be scored.
Data provided by Twelve Data. Scores are computed by Lemma Analysis from reported financials.
Collective Mining Ltd.’s returns on capital beat their cost in most measured years: 2 of 4 indicators passed.
Quantitative signs of a moat, read from the filed statements. This is not a judgement of where it comes from (brand, network effects, switching costs). How Lemma measures a moat →
As of October 19, 2026, Collective Mining Ltd. scores 2.9 out of 10 on the Lemma Quality Score, a reading of low quality. Scores this low usually reflect thin margins, a stretched balance sheet or an erratic record, and the pillars below show which. Nothing in it comes from the share price or from forecasts: it is Collective Mining Ltd.’s own reported numbers, scored pillar by pillar.
Ranked with the 77 Materials companies Lemma publishes, the score sits at the 32nd percentile, in the weaker half of its peers. The median across the group is 4.4, and the top quarter begins at 6.2, so Collective Mining Ltd. is well below the typical company here.
There is no profitability score for Collective Mining Ltd.: too little of the pillar could be measured from the filings to give an honest reading. The overall is therefore the weighted average of the other pillars. Across 74 Materials companies the median for this pillar is 4.4. Without it the overall leans on balance sheet, growth and consistency, and says little about margins or returns on capital.
Solvency has no score for Collective Mining Ltd. Fewer than half of the pillar’s metric weight could be computed from the reported statements, so it is drawn as a dash and left out of the overall rather than counted as a zero. For context, the median solvency score across 66 Materials companies is 6.7. Without it the overall says nothing about how comfortably the company carries its debt.
On growth, Collective Mining Ltd. scores 4.1, an average reading. Its peers have a median of 3.2 across 57 Materials companies, which places it above them, at the 55th percentile. A middling growth reading is typical of a mature company whose next step depends on reinvestment rather than on its market growing for it.
On efficiency, Collective Mining Ltd. scores 1.3, a weak reading. Its peers have a median of 5.2 across 71 Materials companies, which places it well below them, at the 3rd percentile. Weak efficiency means more capital is tied up to produce each unit of output, or less of reported profit is arriving as cash.
Predictability scores 2.9 out of 10, which reads as weak. The median across 76 Materials companies is 4.5, so Collective Mining Ltd. is well below its peers on this pillar and ranks at the 29th percentile. When results are this uneven, the averages behind the other pillars hide a lot of movement, and a longer history tells more than the latest year.
Growth at 4.1 is Collective Mining Ltd.’s best pillar and efficiency at 1.3 its weakest. The 2.8 point gap between them is worth keeping in mind when reading the overall. Leading with growth is attractive as long as the expansion is earning a decent return. Weak efficiency can reflect a heavy investment phase, which only pays off if the investment earns a return.
Closing the gap on efficiency would do the most for the overall. At the median of Materials companies, 5.2, Collective Mining Ltd. would score about 4.0 instead of 2.9. With two pillars unscored, the overall rests on 55 of the 100 weight points, spread across the three pillars that could be measured (the full set is profitability 25, solvency 20, growth 20, efficiency 15, predictability 20).
For a fair comparison, start with companies of a similar size: the Materials companies below are nearest to Collective Mining Ltd. by market value, each scored on the same pillars.
How much profit the company generates from its capital and sales.
The company’s ability to service debt and meet its obligations.
How fast revenue, earnings and cash flow are compounding.
How well assets and earnings convert into cash and output.
How stable and consistent results have been over time.
Each metric is scored from 0 to 10 against sector-aware benchmarks, where higher is better. Metrics roll up into five pillars, and the pillars combine into the overall score using the weights shown. Sector-sensitive metrics are judged relative to peers in the same sector.
This score is a systematic, backward-looking read of reported fundamentals. It does not judge valuation, management quality, competitive moat, or future prospects, and can be distorted by one-off items or unusual accounting. Treat it as a starting point, not a recommendation.
Educational only. Not investment advice.
On this reading Collective Mining Ltd. scores 2.9 out of 10, which reads as low quality. Its strongest pillar is growth, its weakest is efficiency. Quality is not the same as a good investment: the score says nothing about the price you would pay.
Collective Mining Ltd. ranks at the 32nd percentile of the 77 Materials companies Lemma publishes a score for. The median there is 4.4 and the top quarter starts at 6.2, against Collective Mining Ltd.’s 2.9.
Five pillars, each scored from 0 to 10 against sector-aware benchmarks and then weighted into one overall reading: profitability, solvency, growth, efficiency and predictability. Everything comes from reported financials, and nothing comes from price, sentiment or forecasts.
This page last changed on October 19, 2026. The score moves with the financial statements, so the page changes when a new filing moves the reading rather than on a schedule. Live figures for CNL are in the app.
No. Quality and valuation are separate questions, and a good business at the wrong price is still a bad purchase. Score the business here, then price it with a DCF you control.
Inside Lemma Analysis the same five pillars run on every company we cover, with the metrics behind each one, current fundamentals, a DCF you control and a watchlist that tells you when the price catches up.
Free to start · No credit card