@Kanems - "Pretty sure mgt was 1.3 b tonne though? So hows there a comparison?"
I'm not sure where you got your 1.3B tonne for MGT. I'm happy to be corrected if any of my facts of wrong. But I have set out a brief comparison of MGT to CAP below to support my reasons why I believe CAP should have a market cap at least equal to MGT.
My understanding is that MGT has 3.9B tonnes spread across three resources, being Razorback, Iron Peak and Ironback Hill. Razorback and Iron Peak have a combine 2.7B tonnes at an average grade of 15% eDTR and and Ironback Hill has 1.2B at an average of 23.2% eDTR. These are in the Indicated and Inferred categories. MGT also recently picked Muster Dam which would add further resources, but I'm not sure what their plans are for this and I don't think it is part of the PFS.
CAP has one project, being Hawsons which has 2.5B tonnes at an average of grade of 13.9% DTR, of which 755Mt is probable reserve.
Both have potential for further exploration and resource upgrades. From my perspective, if you already have 20 years of production, no need to worry about increasing resources, better to focus on getting what you have discovered into production.
Whilst size of the total resource is important, so to is the economics of the mine and whether it is simple or complex to mine. The more complex, the higher the risk.
MGT's resources are spread across three deposits. These deposits are all long narrow deposits and Ironback Hill looks like its more than 15 km long - see image below. MGT is considering a "selective mining" approach - "selective mining these higher grade horizions has the potential to result in higher grade material being presented to the ore processing plant". (MGT's ASX announcement on 19 August 2020). Whilst that might mean lower processing costs per tonne, it sounds more complex that just digging up the lot and processing everything. It also means that not all of that resource will be mined as they will only select the good stuff.
CAP's Hawsons resource is approximately 1km by 3km and would use a more conventional bulk mining approach. Therefore, simpler to mine and more of the resource will actually get processed.
MGT is currently completing its PFS. Therefore, currently no indication of the economics of the project.
CAP has completed its PFS and the economics are attractive at US$63/t for 62%fe fines. Total CFR costs to China of US$48/t for a 69.9% product means it will be profitable at very low iron ore prices.
Therefore, from my perspective, CAP has a better and more advance resource when compared to MGT.
From
https://magnetitemines.com/razorback-project/