Methodology

Overview

Every miner on JuniorMetrics gets five inferred, 1–10 scores: Jurisdiction, Management, Financials, Deposit Quality, and an Overall score that averages the four. These are separate from Community Rankings, which are opinions submitted by JuniorMetrics users, not something we compute.

None of these scores are investment advice — they're a structured starting point for your own research. See the legal disclaimer for the full picture.

One number worth keeping in view while reading any of this: junior mining as a sector has a rough, oft-cited base rate of roughly 1–2 successes for every 10 companies that set out to become one — the large majority stall out, dilute existing shareholders into irrelevance, or go to zero somewhere along the way. That figure comes from industry commentary we reviewed, not from JuniorMetrics' own tracked-company data, so treat it as sector-level context for calibrating expectations, not a statistic we're claiming to have derived or verified ourselves.

Jurisdiction Risks

A 1–10 score for the political and regulatory stability of the country (and, where it matters, the specific province/state) a project sits in. Higher is safer. This is a manually researched, subjective assessment — not a formal index — weighing rule of law, permitting speed and predictability, indigenous/community consultation requirements, expropriation and resource-nationalism risk, and general political stability. It does not change with short-term news; it's meant to reflect the operating environment a company is stuck with for the life of the mine.

Management

For each current management team member, we track their prior company roles and tag each one SUCCESS, FAILURE, ONGOING, or NEUTRAL based on how that company actually performed (e.g. a mine reaching production and returning capital is a success; a company that went to zero or was delisted is a failure). The Management score is the average success rate — successes divided by decided outcomes (SUCCESS + FAILURE, ongoing and neutral roles are excluded) — across the whole current team, scaled to 1–10.

A team with no decided track record yet (e.g. all first-time executives, or roles still ongoing) shows —rather than a score — we don't invent a number when there's nothing to measure.

That raw average is then reduced by a concurrent-role overextension penalty when a team member is spread thin across multiple companies at once — a real vetting concern, not just a display stat. Executive seats (CEO, CFO, COO, President) get a narrow allowance of 2 companies before the penalty starts, since those roles imply a full-time commitment; director/board seats get a wider allowance of 3, since serving on multiple boards concurrently is normal, often positive, practice. Each company over the allowance costs 0.3 points, capped at 2.0 points total.

Financials

The Financials score is calculated differently depending on stage, because a producer and a pre-revenue explorer should not be judged by the same yardstick:

• Producers & construction-stage companies — scored on net cash (cash minus debt) as a percentage of market cap. Revenue is funding operations at this stage, so balance-sheet strength relative to market cap matters more than raw treasury size.
• Everyone else (explorers/developers) — scored on cash position as a percentage of market cap, a proxy for dilution runway: how long before the company likely needs to raise more money and dilute existing shareholders.

If cash position or debt hasn't been researched yet for a producer, we do not simply assume it's zero and move on — see Unverified Data & the Flag Icon below.

Deposit Quality

A weighted blend of the four factors most likely to make a discovery a real price mover or acquisition target: deposit size — contained ounces (35%), mine life (20%), grade (25%), and AISC cost competitiveness (20%, a production-stage proxy). Deposit size uses a log scale, since deposits span orders of magnitude — a 100,000 oz resource floors near 0, a 10,000,000 oz resource caps near 10. Mine life caps out at 15 years. Grade uses the same log-scale approach but is commodity-specific: for gold, 0.01 oz/t (~0.3 g/t) floors near 0 and 0.5 oz/t (~15.5 g/t, bonanza-tier) caps near 10; for silver, 1 oz/t floors near 0 and 15 oz/t caps near 10. No other commodity has a calibrated grade curve — or, for almost all of them, any populated grade data at all — yet, so grade is excluded rather than scored on a borrowed scale for every commodity besides gold and silver. AISC is scored so a $900/oz, first-quartile cost structure caps near 10 and a $2,400/oz, fourth-quartile structure floors near 0.

Resource-category confidence (Measured/Indicated vs. Inferred) and mining method (open pit vs. underground, strip ratio) aren't tracked in the schema yet, so they aren't inputs to this score.

Contained ounces, mine life, grade, and AISC are each researched (or, for grade, calibrated) separately, and for most companies today only one or two of the four are populated — this remains genuinely the sparsest-coverage score on the site. Rather than defaulting an unresearched or uncalibrated input to zero, we exclude it and re-weight across whichever of the four are available, only withholding the score entirely when none of the four are usable.

For a company with more than one tracked project, these four inputs also reflect only its single most-advanced project, never a blend across every project it holds — see Flagship vs. Secondary Assets under Models below for why.

Royalty Portfolio Score

A royalty or streaming company owns no deposit and files no technical report of its own — it holds a book of interests in OTHER companies' mines instead, so Deposit Quality above structurally can't apply to it. This score is the royalty/ streaming substitute, shown only for those companies: a weighted blend of portfolio scale — attributable gold-equivalent ounces per year (35%), balance-sheet net-cash ratio (20%, the same formula Financials uses for producers above), undrawn credit-facility firepower relative to market cap (15%), dividend yield computed live off the current share price (15%), and the producing share of tracked producing/development/ exploration assets (15%).

Portfolio scale and the credit-facility ratio both use a log scale, the same reasoning as Deposit Quality's size curve: both span orders of magnitude across the tracked royalty universe. Balance-sheet strength is not a separate formula — it reuses Financials' own producer branch directly, since a royalty company is revenue-generating and economically closest to that branch.

Each of the five inputs is researched independently and, like Deposit Quality, an unresearched input is excluded and the remaining weights are re-normalized rather than defaulting it to zero — the score is only withheld entirely when none of the five have been researched yet. P/NAV and implied cash margin (spot price minus disclosed cash cost per GEO) are the two most obvious next candidates for a future v2 component, but neither has enough tracked-company coverage today to build on.

Overall Score

A straight average of whichever of Jurisdiction, Management, Financials, and Deposit Quality are available for that miner (Jurisdiction is always set; the other three can be unavailable, in which case they're excluded rather than counted as zero).

If Management, Financials, and Deposit Quality are all missing, we don't publish an Overall score at all — it shows as a dash. Jurisdiction on its own is not an overall assessment of a company, and printing a single input as a confident-looking “Overall” would imply we know more about that company than we do.

Where at least one of the other three inputs is available, we do publish the average, but flag it as provisional and say which input(s) are missing. The same flag appears when an input we did use is itself provisional — for example a Financials score computed with an unresearched cash or debt figure assumed to be zero. A clean-looking average shouldn't hide either kind of gap underneath it.

Community Rankings

Separately from the inferred scores above, logged-in users can submit their own 1–10 rankings per category for any miner. The numbers shown on the Community page and in the compare table's community columns are simple averages of user submissions, with the submission count shown alongside so you can judge how much signal is behind a given average. These reflect user opinion, not JuniorMetrics research.

The Lassonde Curve

A stylized model of how the market tends to value a junior mining company as it moves through its project's life, named after Pierre Lassonde, co-founder of Franco-Nevada. It doesn't measure anything precisely — it's a shape, not a formula — but it's one of the most widely cited mental models in resource investing for explaining why a technically exciting project can still trade sideways or lower for years.

The curve typically shows an early run-up as drilling turns a speculative idea into a real discovery ("discovery euphoria"), followed by a derating trough once that blue-sky optionality is priced in and the market instead has to sit through the long, capital-intensive, dilution-heavy grind of economic studies and permitting. Valuation tends to re-rate upward again once a construction decision meaningfully de-risks the project, continuing into production. Reading it well means recognizing that a company's stage — not just its news flow — shapes how the market is likely pricing it right now, without treating that pattern as a guarantee for any individual stock.

We've overlaid an illustrative version of the curve on our own 8-stage model on the Lifecycle Roadmap page, so you can see roughly where the classic derating trough and re-rating climb line up against the same stages used everywhere else on this site — including the Pre-Production Sweet Spot described next.

Pre-Production Sweet Spot

Independent analyst Lobo Tiggre's research (also called the "Golden Runway") into the window between a company's formal construction decision — positive feasibility study, permits secured, financing in place — and first production. It's widely cited as one of the highest-probability, best risk-adjusted-return windows on the Lassonde Curve: most of the geological, financing, and permitting risk is already behind the company, but the stock has often still had significant re-rating left to deliver.

In Tiggre's own published studies of 100+ first-time mine builders, roughly 90–95% of companies that made a formal construction decision went on to reach production, with average gains from that decision to first production historically landing well over 100% (rising further for those held through commercial production). Average time from decision to first pour has run around a year and a half. Past performance of the group as a whole doesn't guarantee any individual company succeeds — a favorable stage in the cycle doesn't override red flags in management track record, financing structure, or jurisdiction risk covered elsewhere on this page.

On JuniorMetrics, this window is marked on the Lifecycle Roadmap and on each miner's Lifecycle Milestones. In our current 8-stage model, that maps to the Construction stage specifically — by definition, a company there has already locked in a positive feasibility study, permits, and financing. Permitting-stage companies are marked as approaching it. We deliberately don't extend the window into Production — we don't yet track how long a company has been producing, and including long-mature producers would misrepresent what the window actually means.

Prospect Generator Model

A business model where a company's main product is geological ideas rather than a single flagship project. A prospect generator uses its own technical team to stake or acquire a portfolio of exploration properties, then options or joint-ventures individual prospects out to major and mid-tier partners, who fund the drilling in exchange for an earn-in stake. The generator typically keeps a minority interest, back-in right, or royalty rather than paying for the drill program itself — spreading exploration risk across several properties and funding most of it with partners' capital instead of its own treasury.

Resource investor Rick Rule is one of the most prominent public advocates of this approach, arguing that it lets a junior generate several "at bats" a year while a partner's own due diligence and balance sheet absorb most of the funding risk, and that investors are generally better served by a basket of several prospect generators than a bet on any single one. We haven't fabricated quotes or figures from his commentary here — see his own framing directly:

• Rick Rule: The Prospect Generator Model — Investing News Network
• Investigating Prospect Generators with Rick Rule — Investing News Network

On JuniorMetrics, this is a real, structured classification rather than something you have to infer from a company's Documents and project description: every miner carries a business-model tag, and a company actually run this way is flagged Prospect Generator (or Hybrid PGfor one that also directly funds and operates part of its own project pipeline rather than JV'ing out its entire portfolio — the same hybrid distinction Rick Rule and Jeff Phillips draw), shown as a badge and in Compare and head-to-head views. Its own page adds a dedicated Prospect Generation & Joint Ventures panel alongside its normal operator sections — showing every named JV project's partner, partner tier, retained interest or royalty, and whether partner-funded exploration spending is currently active — and the full roster lives on its own Prospect Generators directory rather than the main miners list.

The Graham & Dodd Method

Benjamin Graham and David Dodd's value-investing framework, laid out in their 1934 text Security Analysis. Its core idea: a security has an intrinsic value grounded in analyzable facts — assets, earnings power, financial strength — that can diverge from its market price. Buying only when price sits meaningfully below that estimated intrinsic value leaves a margin of safety that protects against bad luck or errors in the analysis itself.

Junior miners rarely have the earnings history Graham and Dodd built their original method around, so applying it here means substituting proxies. A technical-report-derived NAV — the after-tax NPV from a PEA, PFS, or Feasibility Study — stands in for intrinsic value, and P/NAV(price divided by that NAV) becomes a margin-of-safety-style ratio: the lower the multiple, the bigger the gap between what the market is charging and what the study says the project is worth, all else equal. This is exactly why each stage's Lifecycle Roadmap detail page shows a P/NAV band alongside "how this phase gets valued" — it's the same lens, tied to our real stage data rather than a company-by-company guess. Balance sheet strength matters too, which is the same reasoning behind the Financials score above — a company with a thin margin of safety on cash is a company one bad financing away from diluting that NAV per share down significantly.

None of this replaces judgment — a low P/NAV can reflect a genuine bargain or a genuinely troubled project (bad jurisdiction, weak management, an unfinanceable capex bill), which is exactly what the Jurisdiction and Management scores elsewhere on this page are for.

One current limitation: P/NAV as shown here assumes the company owns 100% of its project. For a joint-ventured project where the company holds less than a full interest, the NAV figure reflects the whole project rather than the company's attributable share, so the true P/NAV is understated — e.g. a project that's 50%-owned via JV would have a real P/NAV roughly 2x higher than the raw market-cap-over-NAV figure suggests. We don't yet track project ownership percentage as structured data, so treat P/NAV on JV'd projects as a lower bound until that's addressed.

Flagship vs. Secondary Assets

A recurring theme across investor-interview coverage of junior miners we reviewed in early August 2026 — unlike the named frameworks elsewhere on this page, this wasn't one analyst's stated rule, just a habit repeated across several interviews: don't let a secondary or pipeline asset inflate how you value a multi-project company. The reasoning given was blunt — those assets "almost never" pan out the way an investor deck implies, so a credible valuation should really be anchored to the flagship (or furthest-along) project, with everything else treated as free optionality rather than something to underwrite.

JuniorMetrics already works this way structurally for a company with more than one tracked project, though not because we built it in response to this specific framework — it falls directly out of the "stage is a claim, not a label" rule the whole site already enforces. stage, and the Miner-level figures behind Deposit Quality and the NAV used in Graham & Dodd's P/NAV above (contained ounces, mine life, grade, AISC, NPV) all track the company's single most-advanced evidenced project, never a blend averaged across every project it holds. A second or third project shown on a miner's page can add real color, but it never inflates the resource size, mine life, cost profile, or NAV figures that actually drive that company's scores — the same discipline this interview commentary argues for.

One nuance worth being precise about: "most-advanced project" and "market-narrative flagship" aren't always the same project. Occasionally a company's own investor materials center on a large, earlier-stage project while a smaller, further-along project is the one actually driving its stage and scores today — in that case, it's the further-along project's numbers feeding this page, not necessarily the one dominating the company's own marketing. Check a company's Documents and project tabs directly if you want to see how a less-advanced flagship's own numbers compare.

Kaiser's Fair Speculative Value

John Kaiser, publisher of Kaiser Research Online, built a valuation framework around a figure he calls Fair Speculative Value — an attempt to put a number on what a speculative exploration project should be worth right now, given both its ultimate geological potential and how far it has actually progressed toward proving that potential is real.

The model has two separate parts. First, Kaiser estimates the project's "size of the prize" — what the deposit could plausibly be worth if the geological thesis pans out in full. That starts as a geometric estimate (strike length × width × thickness × specific gravity, scaled by an assumed grade) to arrive at a tonnage and contained-metal figure, which is then converted into a potential revenue stream using a metal price assumption and an expected recovery rate, and netted against capex and opex estimates drawn from comparable technical reports on similar deposits and jurisdictions. The result is a theoretical value for the project if the deposit is real and gets built.

Second, Kaiser applies a certainty percentage that discounts that theoretical prize down to what it's actually worth today, given how much of the geological and economic case is still unproven. He ties this percentage to the project's stage of maturity, on a ladder that runs from a fraction of a percent at the earliest grassroots stage up to 100% once a mine is actually producing:

• Grassroots — 0.5–1%
• Target Testing / Drilling — 1–2.5%
• Discovery Delineation — 2.5–5%
• Infill & Metallurgy — 5–10%
• PEA — 10–25%
• Prefeasibility — 25–50%
• Permitting & Feasibility — 50–75%
• Construction — 75–100%
• Production — 100%

This is Kaiser's own progression and doesn't map one-to-one onto the 8-stage model used elsewhere on this site — he splits early-stage exploration into three rungs where we use a single Grassroots stage ahead of Resource Definition, and his "Permitting & Feasibility" rung combines what we track as two separate stages. Multiplying size of the prize by the stage-appropriate certainty percentage produces a Fair Speculative Value range, which Kaiser then compares against a company's actual market capitalization to judge whether it's trading cheap or rich for where it sits on that ladder — the same "is the market pricing this correctly for its stage" question the Lassonde Curve above addresses more qualitatively.

This is a manual, judgment-heavy process, not a mechanical formula you can run off public data. Kaiser builds the "size of the prize" estimate project by project, drawing on his own geological read of the property and hand-picked comparable deposits and technical reports as analogs — two analysts could reasonably land on different numbers from the same drill results. We don't (yet) compute or display a per-company Fair Speculative Value on JuniorMetrics; this section explains the framework so you can apply the same logic yourself when reading a project's technical report, the same way the Lassonde Curve above is explicitly illustrative rather than a per-company measurement.

One related habit worth carrying into how you read any NPV figure on this site: the after-tax NPV a company reports in its own press releases and technical reports — including the NAV used in the Graham & Dodd section above — is typically discounted at 5%, a rate junior companies tend to favor because it produces a larger, more flattering number. Kaiser has pointed out that major producers actually underwrite acquisitions at closer to a 10% discount rate, which is worth keeping in mind as a more conservative sanity check on any headline NPV figure.

Pure-Play vs. Byproduct Producers

Rick Rule draws a valuation distinction between a pure-play producer — one whose revenue is overwhelmingly concentrated in a single metal — and a byproductproducer, such as a copper miner that also sells the gold or silver recovered alongside its copper as a credit against costs. His framing: investors underwriting a pure play are effectively betting on one commodity's price and tend to reward it with a richer market-cap-to-free-cash-flow multiple, while a byproduct producer's economics blend more than one commodity cycle, so the market tends to judge it more on return-on-capital-employed than on that same multiple. Neither structure is inherently better — a byproduct credit that meaningfully lowers a mine's all-in sustaining cost is a real, valuable thing — but reading a byproduct producer's valuation multiple against a pure-play peer's as if they were directly comparable misses why the market prices them differently in the first place.

We don't track a per-metal revenue breakdown platform-wide — most junior and even mid-tier producers don't disclose one at a level precise enough to backfill reliably across hundreds of companies. What we do track on every miner is which secondary commodities (if any) it's tracked as producing or exploring for, alongside its single primary commodity tag. A producer's detail page shows a Pure-Play badge when no secondary commodity is tracked for it, or a Multi-Commoditybadge when one or more is. This is a real, computed signal, but it's a coarser one than an actual revenue split — a company flagged Multi-Commodity could still derive the large majority of its revenue from its primary metal with only a minor byproduct credit, or could have a genuinely blended revenue base. Treat the badge as a prompt to go check the company's own financial disclosure for the real mix, not as a verified revenue-mix percentage in itself.

Optionality Scale

Rick Rule also draws a minimum-size line under what counts as a genuine optionality play— a deposit that isn't economic to mine at today's commodity price, but would become economic at a meaningfully higher one. His framing is a floor, not a ceiling: he wants roughly a million-plus-ounce deposit before he considers that bet credible — "a deposit where if the price goes up somebody has to buy it." Below that rough size, his own point is that a price recovery alone doesn't make the deposit a real acquisition target — it's too small to move the needle for anyone who would actually buy it, so it isn't a genuine call option on the commodity price at all, just an unproven resource. It's worth stating the direction plainly since it's easy to get backwards: a small deposit isn't automatically "the optionality play" by virtue of being small and speculative — in Rule's own framing, it can be too small to qualify as one.

This only applies to companies that aren't already producing. A producer's deposit is by definition already economic at current prices, so it isn't a price-optionality bet in the first place — it's cash flow now, not a call option. Construction-stage companies are excluded on the same logic: reaching that stage already means a positive feasibility study, i.e. the project is already underwritten as economic at current prices.

Rule's interview only speaks to gold-scale ounces, so we don't have an independently sourced figure for what the equivalent minimum looks like in copper, nickel, or uranium terms. Rather than guess a number for those commodities, we anchor this threshold to the midpoint of each commodity's own deposit-size curve used in the Deposit Quality score above — bounds that were independently researched per-commodity for that unrelated purpose. For gold and silver (contained troy ounces, 100,000 oz floor / 10,000,000 oz cap) that midpoint works out to almost exactly 1,000,000 oz — landing on Rule's own stated figure without being fitted to it, which we take as a reasonable (if single-datapoint) sign that "curve midpoint" is a sensible stand-in for the commodities Rule didn't speak to directly. For uranium (lbs U₃O₈, 1,000,000 lb floor / 500,000,000 lb cap) that same midpoint is roughly 22.4 million lb — untested against any Rule benchmark, and disclosed as such.

Softer and more qualitative than a hard cutoff — this is one resource investor's stated heuristic, not a peer-reviewed economic threshold, and we surface it as a labeled badge on a miner's detail page rather than as a filter that removes companies from view anywhere on the site.

How to Read a Technical Report

Most of the numbers junior miners are actually valued on — NAV, AISC, mine life — come from a single document: the technical reportfiled alongside a resource estimate or economic study. We link out to a lot of these in each miner's Documents section, and they run 100–300+ pages, but a retail read genuinely only needs the Executive Summary — usually the first 10–30 pages — which restates every figure below in plain prose before the report descends into geology and engineering detail aimed at other professionals.

PEA vs. PFS vs. FS

Under NI 43-101 (the Canadian disclosure standard most of these companies report under — JORC is the Australian equivalent and SK-1300 the US one; all three share the same broad logic), a project's economics get studied in three progressively stricter stages, and they are not interchangeable levels of confidence:

• PEA (Preliminary Economic Assessment)— the earliest and by far the least reliable study. It can be built partly or entirely on Inferred Resources — the lowest-confidence resource category — and on conceptual mining and processing assumptions that haven't been engineered in detail. NI 43-101 is explicit that a PEA's results cannot be used as the sole basis for a production decision. Treat a PEA as a "this could work, here's the rough shape" sketch, not a number to anchor a valuation on by itself.
• PFS (Pre-Feasibility Study)— a materially more rigorous pass, leaning mostly on Measured and Indicated Resources with engineering taken to a level detailed enough to screen the project and choose a preferred development option. Still not considered bankable, but the assumptions behind it are far harder to wave away than a PEA's.
• FS (Feasibility Study)— the highest-confidence study, engineered to a level lenders and boards actually use to commit real construction capital. It requires Reserves (Measured/Indicated Resources converted through a positive economic test), locks in vendor quotes and detailed engineering rather than factored estimates, and is the study a company's formal construction decision — the same milestone behind the Pre-Production Sweet Spot above — is actually built on.

In short: the closer a company is to production, the more its numbers are worth trusting at face value. A PEA is a hypothesis: an early, if geologically promising, estimate not yet a plan.

The numbers worth finding

• NPV (Net Present Value)— the project's discounted after-tax cash flows, i.e. what the study says the mine is worth today. Always check what discount rate it's calculated at — reports commonly show it at both 5% and 8% (sometimes more rates in a sensitivity table), and a lower rate produces a bigger, more flattering headline number. This is the same NAV figure discussed in the Graham & Dodd section above, and the same 5%-vs-10% caution raised at the end of the Fair Speculative Value section.
• IRR (Internal Rate of Return)— the discount rate at which NPV would hit zero; a rough proxy for the project's own rate of return. Compare it against the discount rate used for NPV — an IRR only a few points above the discount rate is a much thinner margin than headlines suggest.
• Payback period — how many years of production it takes to recover the initial capex. Shorter is generally lower-risk, all else equal, since less of the return depends on assumptions holding up years out.
• AISC (All-In Sustaining Cost) — the fully-loaded cost to produce one unit of metal, including sustaining capital. This is the same cost figure behind the Deposit Quality score above; the lower it sits relative to spot price, the more margin (and downside cushion) the project has.
• Initial capex— the upfront cost to build the mine. Compare it against the company's actual market cap and treasury — a project that costs several times the company's current market cap to build is a project that will need a lot of dilution or debt before it produces anything.
• Mine life— years of planned production at the modeled rate. A short mine life leans harder on exploration upside or a future expansion to be worth more than the study's own numbers.
• Strip ratio(open pit only) — tonnes of waste rock moved per tonne of ore. A high strip ratio means more of every dollar spent on mining goes toward moving rock that isn't paying for itself.

Red flags

• Commodity price assumptions well above spot or consensus long-term price.Every economic study has to assume a metal price to generate its revenue line, and a study built on an optimistic price will produce an inflated NPV and IRR even if every other input is sound. Always check the assumed price against where the metal actually trades — and against consensus long-term forecasts, not just today's spot — before trusting a headline number.
• No disclosed price assumption at all.If a press release headlines an NPV or IRR without stating the commodity price it's built on, that's a gap worth chasing down in the Executive Summary before taking the number at face value.
• Stale studies. A PEA or FS announced several years ago, with metal prices, capex inflation, and financing conditions having moved a lot since, can be badly out of date even if no single input was unreasonable when it was written. Check the report date, not just the headline figures.

Where We Source Our Data

JuniorMetrics pulls from a small number of real sources rather than one black-box feed, and the reliability of a number on this site tracks pretty directly to which of these it came from:

• EODHD (market data + fundamentals)— a single paid EODHD account on their ALL-IN-ONE plan (100,000 API calls/day) covers everything we pull programmatically: real-time quotes, EOD/historical prices, FX rates, spot Gold and Silver prices, and EODHD's Fundamentals endpoint, which feeds company financials, the Holders data behind institutional ownership pages, insider transactions, and company news. This is the same scheduled daily job described in How Our Data Is Verified above — a repeatable pull, not a manual re-type.
• Regulatory filings and company disclosures — SEDAR+ for Canadian issuers, SEC EDGAR for US issuers, and ASX/AIM announcement platforms for those exchanges. This is where technical reports live — the PEAs, PFSs, and Feasibility Studies filed under NI 43-101, JORC, or SK-1300 described in How to Read a Technical Report above — along with press releases and MD&A, which is where most of our hand-researched cash, debt, and project-economics figures are pulled from.
• Company investor-relations and management pages — the source for the current management-team data behind the Management score above: who's currently on a team, and what other companies they've held roles at.
• Per-metric source citations — structured numbers like NPV, AISC, and contained ounces can carry a citation back to the specific document or URL they were pulled from (the document icon described in How Our Data Is Verified above). This is genuinely a work in progress, not full coverage: 925 of the site's 925miners currently have at least one cited metric. We're backfilling this over time rather than claiming it's done.
• Community-sourced data — Community Rankings, covered above in Community Rankings, is the one category on this page that isn't drawn from filings or disclosures at all. It's user-submitted opinion, plainly labeled as such wherever it appears, and it should be weighed differently from everything else in this section, which traces back to a real filing, report, or company page.

How Our Data Is Verified

Different pieces of data on JuniorMetrics come from different places, and go through different checks before they show up on the site:

• Live market data— price, volume, and FX rates are pulled directly from EODHD's market data feed on a scheduled daily job, not manually re-typed. The same job backfills and extends each miner's real trailing price history and 52-week range from actual exchange data.
• Company fundamentals— cash position, debt, jurisdiction rationale, and technical-report figures (mine life, cut-off grade, NPV, AISC) are hand-researched from primary sources: company filings, press releases, and NI 43-101 / JORC-style technical reports. None of this is scraped or generated wholesale — it's entered figure by figure, source by source.
• Source citations— for a growing set of metrics, a small document icon next to the number links straight to the original source document (and page, where we've recorded one) that figure was pulled from, so you can check the primary source yourself instead of taking our word for it. Coverage is partial and expanding — the icon only appears once a metric has actually been sourced.
• Internal data-quality audit— behind the scenes, we run a repeatable audit across every miner that flags missing or incomplete data and ranks the gaps by how many companies they affect. That's how we decide what to research next, and it's the same discipline that produces the unverified-data flags described below — we'd rather surface a gap than quietly paper over it.