Compare the evidence
Kazatomprom vs Ur-Energy vs Denison
Compare reported mining output, recovery stages and project construction. Attributable tonnes, captured pounds and planned production are not equivalent capacity measures; mining does not provide conversion or enrichment.
Read horizontally within each row. Product ratings, planned capacity, completed deliveries and current financials describe different stages.
On narrow screens, scroll the comparison horizontally. Each figure keeps its period, accounting definition and source. GAAP cash flow, adjusted margins, segment gross profit and EBITDA are not interchangeable.
| Research dimension | KazatompromKAP · Checked 2026-10-21 | Ur-EnergyURG · Checked 2026-10-21 | Denison MinesDNN · Checked 2026-10-21 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Industrial role | Uranium mining and primary supply | US in-situ uranium recovery | Uranium project development and ISR construction |
| Constraint to test | Wellfield execution, reagent availability and delivery logistics | Wellfield flow, plant recovery and finished-product conversion | Construction, freeze-wall execution and subsequent recovery qualification |
| Reported evidence and sources | Kazatomprom reported preliminary Q1 2026 attributable uranium production of 3,247 tU versus 2,964 tU a year earlier.
| Ur-Energy reported Lost Creek Q1 2026 captured, dried/packaged and shipped uranium as separate operating stages.
| Denison announced full-scale Phoenix ISR construction in July 2026 after site preparation and permitting milestones.
|
| Capacity and delivery |
|
|
|
| Reported economics | Not quantified in this profile. | Not quantified in this profile. | Not quantified in this profile. |
| Evidence coverage | Public product or operations profile. Quantitative economic exposure has not been reviewed here. Constraint-specific revenue, pricing power and valuation remain unquantified; product relevance is not proof of pure-play exposure. No quantified share of revenue attributable to the specific constraint. No evidence-strength score is assigned. | Public product or operations profile. Quantitative economic exposure has not been reviewed here. Constraint-specific revenue, pricing power and valuation remain unquantified; product relevance is not proof of pure-play exposure. No quantified share of revenue attributable to the specific constraint. No evidence-strength score is assigned. | Public product or operations profile. Quantitative economic exposure has not been reviewed here. Constraint-specific revenue, pricing power and valuation remain unquantified; product relevance is not proof of pure-play exposure. No quantified share of revenue attributable to the specific constraint. No evidence-strength score is assigned. |
| Counter-evidence | No separately sourced counter-evidence review is included in this baseline. The conditions below are research tests. | No separately sourced counter-evidence review is included in this baseline. The conditions below are research tests. | No separately sourced counter-evidence review is included in this baseline. The conditions below are research tests. |
| Next to monitor |
|
|
|
| What would weaken the case? |
|
|
|
Open in Excel or another spreadsheet. Each entry preserves its source, date and accounting definition; research interpretations are labeled.
How to use this comparison
Start with the constraint, inspect the dated sources, then follow the company to monitor new evidence. A documented industrial role does not establish a shortage or an attractive share price.
This comparison uses open company research checked on the dates shown. Valuation and expected returns require a separate review.