TFPM vs FNV

For growth investors, Franco-Nevada Corporation (FNV) is the stronger pick with 66.

4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 47. 0% for Triple Flag Precious Metals Corp. (TFPM). Triple Flag Precious Metals Corp. (TFPM) offers the better valuation at 27. 0x trailing P/E (22. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Triple Flag Precious Metals Corp. (TFPM) a "Buy" — based on 4 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, Triple Flag Precious Metals Corp.

(TFPM) is the cheapest at 27. 0x versus Franco-Nevada Corporation at 38. 9x. On forward P/E, Triple Flag Precious Metals Corp. is actually cheaper at 22. 7x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Triple Flag Precious Metals Corp. wins at 0. 83x versus Franco-Nevada Corporation's 0. 99x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Triple Flag Precious Metals Corp.

(TFPM) delivered a total return of +265. 3%, compared to +58. 9% for Franco-Nevada Corporation (FNV). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: TFPM returned +276. 1% versus FNV's +262. 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), Triple Flag Precious Metals Corp.

(TFPM) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 61β versus Franco-Nevada Corporation's 0. 66β — meaning FNV is approximately 7% more volatile than TFPM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Franco-Nevada Corporation (FNV) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 0% for Triple Flag Precious Metals Corp. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Franco-Nevada Corporation (FNV) is pulling ahead at 66.

4% versus 47. 0% for Triple Flag Precious Metals Corp. (TFPM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Triple Flag Precious Metals Corp. grew EPS 1191% year-over-year, compared to 104. 2% for Franco-Nevada Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, TFPM leads at 37. 6% 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.

Triple Flag Precious Metals Corp.

(TFPM) is the more profitable company, earning 61. 7% net margin versus 61. 1% for Franco-Nevada Corporation — meaning it keeps 61. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: FNV leads at 71. 0% versus 59. 3% for TFPM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — FNV leads at 73. 9%, 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, Triple Flag Precious Metals Corp. (TFPM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 83x versus Franco-Nevada Corporation's 0. 99x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Triple Flag Precious Metals Corp. (TFPM) trades at 22. 7x forward P/E versus 26. 4x for Franco-Nevada Corporation — 3. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for TFPM: 32. 7% to $43. 00.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Triple Flag Precious Metals Corp. (TFPM) offers the highest yield at 0. 7%, versus 0. 6% for Franco-Nevada Corporation (FNV).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Triple Flag Precious Metals Corp.

(TFPM) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 61), 0. 7% yield, +276. 1% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (TFPM: +276. 1%, FNV: +262. 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.