GFI vs NEM

For growth investors, Newmont Corporation (NEM) is the stronger pick with 19.

1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 15. 6% for Gold Fields Limited (GFI). Newmont Corporation (NEM) offers the better valuation at 17. 0x trailing P/E (10. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Newmont Corporation (NEM) a "Buy" — based on 36 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On trailing P/E, Newmont Corporation (NEM) is the cheapest at 17.

0x versus Gold Fields Limited at 30. 3x. On forward P/E, Gold Fields Limited is actually cheaper at 7. 1x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Gold Fields Limited wins at 0. 15x versus Newmont Corporation's 0. 82x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Gold Fields Limited (GFI) delivered a total return of +366.

2%, compared to +80. 0% for Newmont Corporation (NEM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GFI returned +959. 4% versus NEM's +267. 2%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Newmont Corporation (NEM) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

75β versus Gold Fields Limited's 0. 86β — meaning GFI is approximately 14% more volatile than NEM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Newmont Corporation (NEM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 1% versus 55% for Gold Fields Limited — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Newmont Corporation (NEM) is pulling ahead at 19.

1% versus 15. 6% for Gold Fields Limited (GFI). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Newmont Corporation grew EPS 124. 1% year-over-year, compared to 79. 2% for Gold Fields Limited. Over a 3-year CAGR, NEM leads at 22. 7% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

Newmont Corporation (NEM) is the more profitable company, earning 32.

1% net margin versus 23. 9% for Gold Fields Limited — meaning it keeps 32. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NEM leads at 46. 9% versus 40. 2% for GFI. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NEM leads at 49. 8%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.

By this metric, Gold Fields Limited (GFI) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 15x versus Newmont Corporation's 0. 82x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Gold Fields Limited (GFI) trades at 7. 1x forward P/E versus 10. 5x for Newmont Corporation — 3. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for GFI: 30. 3% to $54. 42.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Gold Fields Limited (GFI) offers the highest yield at 0. 9%, versus 0. 9% for Newmont Corporation (NEM).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Gold Fields Limited (GFI) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

86), 0. 9% yield, +959. 4% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (GFI: +959. 4%, NEM: +267. 2%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

Both stocks operate in the Basic Materials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.