Banks - Regional
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
BAP vs GFI vs NEM vs ITUB vs AEM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Gold
Gold
Banks - Regional
Gold
BAP vs GFI vs NEM vs ITUB vs AEM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Banks - Regional | Gold | Gold | Banks - Regional | Gold |
| Market Cap | $25.51B | $40.19B | $125.72B | $90.15B | $94.03B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $27.00B | $10.92B | $17.23B | $384.58B | $11.87B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $6.47B | $2.54B | $5.26B | $44.86B | $4.45B |
| Gross Margin | 64.2% | 43.1% | 52.1% | 34.5% | 57.3% |
| Operating Margin | 29.0% | 43.2% | 49.3% | 13.1% | 52.9% |
| Forward P/E | 3.4x | 7.6x | 10.9x | 1.7x | 13.5x |
| Total Debt | $37.49B | $2.95B | $474M | $1.01T | $321M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $47.51B | $860M | $7.65B | $270.61B | $2.87B |
BAP vs GFI vs NEM vs ITUB vs AEM — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credicorp Ltd. (BAP) | 100 | 233.3 | +133.3% |
| Gold Fields Limited (GFI) | 100 | 581.6 | +481.6% |
| Newmont Corporation (NEM) | 100 | 194.1 | +94.1% |
| Itaú Unibanco Holdi… (ITUB) | 100 | 257.2 | +157.2% |
| Agnico Eagle Mines … (AEM) | 100 | 293.3 | +193.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BAP vs GFI vs NEM vs ITUB vs AEM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BAP is the clearest fit if your priority is bank quality.
- NIM 5.5% vs ITUB's 1.2%
GFI ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding.
- 10.9% 10Y total return vs AEM's 351.2%
- 23.4% ROA vs ITUB's 1.5%, ROIC 24.0% vs 3.2%
NEM is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +112.0% vs ITUB's +44.4%
ITUB is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- Dividend streak 4 yrs, beta 1.11, yield 10.4%
- PEG 0.08 vs NEM's 0.85
- Lower P/E (1.7x vs 13.5x), PEG 0.08 vs 0.40
- 10.4% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs GFI's 0.9%
AEM carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and sleep-well-at-night.
- Rev growth 43.7%, EPS growth 134.4%, 3Y rev CAGR 29.3%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.52, Low D/E 1.3%, current ratio 2.02x
- Beta 0.52, yield 0.8%, current ratio 2.02x
- 43.7% revenue growth vs BAP's 6.4%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 43.7% revenue growth vs BAP's 6.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (1.7x vs 13.5x), PEG 0.08 vs 0.40 | |
| Quality / Margins | 37.5% margin vs ITUB's 11.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.52 vs ITUB's 1.11, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 10.4% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs GFI's 0.9% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +112.0% vs ITUB's +44.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 23.4% ROA vs ITUB's 1.5%, ROIC 24.0% vs 3.2% |
BAP vs GFI vs NEM vs ITUB vs AEM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
BAP vs GFI vs NEM vs ITUB vs AEM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
ITUB leads in 2 of 6 categories
AEM leads 1 • BAP leads 0 • GFI leads 0 • NEM leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AEM leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ITUB is the larger business by revenue, generating $384.6B annually — 35.2x GFI's $10.9B. AEM is the more profitable business, keeping 37.5% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to ITUB's 11.7%. On growth, AEM holds the edge at +64.9% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $27.0B | $10.9B | $17.2B | $384.6B | $11.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $10.4B | $6.0B | $12.7B | $57.6B | $7.9B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $6.5B | $2.5B | $5.3B | $44.9B | $4.4B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $4.6B | $2.0B | $12.9B | $117.6B | $4.4B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +64.2% | +43.1% | +52.1% | +34.5% | +57.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +29.0% | +43.2% | +49.3% | +13.1% | +52.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +20.4% | +23.2% | +30.5% | +11.7% | +37.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +49.7% | +18.7% | +75.0% | +33.3% | +37.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +64.2% | -100.0% | — | +64.9% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +14.1% | +165.1% | -100.0% | -11.4% | +199.0% |
Valuation Metrics
ITUB leads this category, winning 6 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 10.3x trailing earnings, ITUB trades at a 68% valuation discount to GFI's 32.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), ITUB offers better value at 0.50x vs BAP's 3.08x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $25.5B | $40.2B | $125.7B | $90.2B | $94.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $22.6B | $42.3B | $118.6B | $240.0B | $91.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 16.11x | 32.54x | 17.70x | 10.30x | 21.18x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 3.37x | 7.64x | 10.89x | 1.74x | 13.47x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 3.08x | 0.67x | 1.38x | 0.50x | 0.63x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 9.16x | 15.54x | 9.03x | 20.62x | 11.47x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.27x | 7.73x | 5.69x | 1.16x | 7.90x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.53x | 7.49x | 3.69x | 2.11x | 3.82x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 6.59x | 56.66x | 17.22x | 3.48x | 22.06x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — GFI and AEM each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
GFI delivers a 40.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 in annual profit, vs $16 for NEM. AEM carries lower financial leverage with a 0.01x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to ITUB's 4.71x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), NEM scores 9/9 vs ITUB's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +17.4% | +40.6% | +15.6% | +20.6% | +19.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +2.5% | +23.4% | +9.4% | +1.5% | +13.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +8.2% | +24.0% | +24.9% | +3.2% | +21.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +10.1% | +27.6% | +20.7% | +2.8% | +20.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 8 | 5 | 9 | 4 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.07x | 0.55x | 0.01x | 4.71x | 0.01x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$10.0B | $2.1B | -$7.2B | $742.0B | -$2.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $47.5B | $860M | $7.6B | $270.6B | $2.9B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $37.5B | $2.9B | $474M | $1.01T | $321M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.99x | 44.58x | 50.54x | 0.23x | 73.32x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — GFI and AEM each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in GFI five years ago would be worth $46,194 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $17,998 for NEM. Over the past 12 months, NEM leads with a +112.0% total return vs ITUB's +44.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors AEM at 48.0% vs ITUB's 26.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +12.2% | +6.4% | +12.4% | +14.3% | +10.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +66.0% | +103.5% | +112.0% | +44.4% | +61.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +138.9% | +183.6% | +142.1% | +102.5% | +224.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +194.5% | +361.9% | +80.0% | +149.0% | +183.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +181.0% | +1086.7% | +293.1% | +188.7% | +351.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +33.7% | +41.6% | +34.3% | +26.5% | +48.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — ITUB and AEM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
AEM is the less volatile stock with a 0.52 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than ITUB's 1.11 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. ITUB currently trades 85.2% from its 52-week high vs GFI's 72.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.81x | 0.86x | 0.75x | 1.11x | 0.52x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $380.20 | $61.64 | $134.88 | $9.60 | $255.24 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $193.13 | $19.35 | $48.27 | $6.07 | $103.38 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +84.6% | +72.8% | +84.1% | +85.2% | +73.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 48.1 | 52.5 | 53.5 | 42.4 | 43.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 358K | 3.1M | 9.2M | 24.5M | 2.5M |
Analyst Outlook
ITUB leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: BAP as "Hold", GFI as "Hold", NEM as "Buy", ITUB as "Buy", AEM as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 26.9% upside for BAP (target: $408) vs -22.0% for ITUB (target: $6). For income investors, ITUB offers the higher dividend yield at 10.45% vs AEM's 0.77%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $408.00 | $54.42 | $137.50 | $6.38 | $237.71 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 15 | 18 | 36 | 12 | 31 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +4.1% | +0.9% | +0.9% | +10.4% | +0.8% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 2 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $46.03 | $0.39 | $1.00 | $4.23 | $1.45 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.1% | 0.0% | +1.8% | +0.7% | +0.7% |
ITUB leads in 2 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Analyst Outlook). AEM leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 3 tied.
BAP vs GFI vs NEM vs ITUB vs AEM: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BAP or GFI or NEM or ITUB or AEM a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (AEM) is the stronger pick with 43.
7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 6. 4% for Credicorp Ltd. (BAP). Itaú Unibanco Holding S. A. (ITUB) offers the better valuation at 10. 3x trailing P/E (1. 7x 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.
02Which has the better valuation — BAP or GFI or NEM or ITUB or AEM?
On trailing P/E, Itaú Unibanco Holding S.
A. (ITUB) is the cheapest at 10. 3x versus Gold Fields Limited at 32. 5x. On forward P/E, Itaú Unibanco Holding S. A. is actually cheaper at 1. 7x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Itaú Unibanco Holding S. A. wins at 0. 08x versus Newmont Corporation's 0. 85x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — BAP or GFI or NEM or ITUB or AEM?
Over the past 5 years, Gold Fields Limited (GFI) delivered a total return of +361.
9%, compared to +80. 0% for Newmont Corporation (NEM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GFI returned +1087% versus BAP's +181. 0%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — BAP or GFI or NEM or ITUB or AEM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (AEM) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
52β versus Itaú Unibanco Holding S. A. 's 1. 11β — meaning ITUB is approximately 112% more volatile than AEM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (AEM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 1% versus 5% for Itaú Unibanco Holding S. A. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — BAP or GFI or NEM or ITUB or AEM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (AEM) is pulling ahead at 43.
7% versus 6. 4% for Credicorp Ltd. (BAP). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Agnico Eagle Mines Limited grew EPS 134. 4% year-over-year, compared to 4. 0% for Itaú Unibanco Holding S. A.. Over a 3-year CAGR, AEM leads at 29. 3% 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.
06Which has better profit margins — BAP or GFI or NEM or ITUB or AEM?
Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (AEM) is the more profitable company, earning 37.
5% net margin versus 11. 7% for Itaú Unibanco Holding S. A. — meaning it keeps 37. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AEM leads at 53. 1% versus 13. 1% for ITUB. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — BAP leads at 64. 2%, 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.
07Is BAP or GFI or NEM or ITUB or AEM more undervalued right now?
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, Itaú Unibanco Holding S. A. (ITUB) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 08x versus Newmont Corporation's 0. 85x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Itaú Unibanco Holding S. A. (ITUB) trades at 1. 7x forward P/E versus 13. 5x for Agnico Eagle Mines Limited — 11. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for BAP: 26. 9% to $408. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — BAP or GFI or NEM or ITUB or AEM?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Itaú Unibanco Holding S. A. (ITUB) offers the highest yield at 10. 4%, versus 0. 8% for Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (AEM).
09Is BAP or GFI or NEM or ITUB or AEM better for a retirement portfolio?
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, +1087% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (GFI: +1087%, ITUB: +188. 7%), 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.
10What are the main differences between BAP and GFI and NEM and ITUB and AEM?
These companies operate in different sectors (BAP (Financial Services) and GFI (Basic Materials) and NEM (Basic Materials) and ITUB (Financial Services) and AEM (Basic Materials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: BAP is a mid-cap deep-value stock; GFI is a mid-cap high-growth stock; NEM is a mid-cap high-growth stock; ITUB is a mid-cap high-growth stock; AEM is a mid-cap high-growth stock. 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.