EZPW vs NEM vs AEM vs FCFS

For growth investors, Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (AEM) is the stronger pick with 43.

7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 8. 0% for FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS). Newmont Corporation (NEM) offers the better valuation at 17. 7x trailing P/E (10. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate EZCORP, Inc. (EZPW) a "Buy" — based on 15 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.

7x versus FirstCash Holdings, Inc at 30. 3x. On forward P/E, Newmont Corporation is actually cheaper at 10. 9x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Agnico Eagle Mines Limited wins at 0. 40x versus FirstCash Holdings, Inc's 0. 88x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, EZCORP, Inc.

(EZPW) delivered a total return of +406. 6%, compared to +80. 0% for Newmont Corporation (NEM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: EZPW returned +590. 8% versus NEM's +293. 1%. 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), FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

31β versus EZCORP, Inc. 's 0. 82β — meaning EZPW is approximately 164% more volatile than FCFS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (AEM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 1% versus 124% for FirstCash Holdings, Inc — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (AEM) is pulling ahead at 43.

7% versus 8. 0% for FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Agnico Eagle Mines Limited grew EPS 134. 4% year-over-year, compared to 29. 1% for EZCORP, Inc.. 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.

Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (AEM) is the more profitable company, earning 37.

5% net margin versus 8. 6% for EZCORP, Inc. — 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 11. 7% for EZPW. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — EZPW leads at 58. 5%, 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, Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (AEM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 40x versus FirstCash Holdings, Inc's 0. 88x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Newmont Corporation (NEM) trades at 10. 9x forward P/E versus 20. 9x for FirstCash Holdings, Inc — 10. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for AEM: 26. 6% to $237. 71.

In this comparison, NEM (0.

9% yield), AEM (0. 8% yield), FCFS (0. 7% yield) pay a dividend. EZPW does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, FirstCash Holdings, Inc (FCFS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

31), 0. 7% yield, +397. 9% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (FCFS: +397. 9%, EZPW: +590. 8%), 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.

These companies operate in different sectors (EZPW (Financial Services) and NEM (Basic Materials) and AEM (Basic Materials) and FCFS (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

In terms of investment character: EZPW is a small-cap quality compounder stock; NEM is a mid-cap high-growth stock; AEM is a mid-cap high-growth stock; FCFS is a small-cap quality compounder stock. NEM, AEM, FCFS pay a dividend while EZPW does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.