Gold
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
NAMM vs SBSW vs NEM vs HL vs AEM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Gold
Gold
Gold
Gold
NAMM vs SBSW vs NEM vs HL vs AEM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Gold | Gold | Gold | Gold | Gold |
| Market Cap | $85M | $9.43B | $129.09B | $12.48B | $96.80B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $-24M | $238.26B | $17.23B | $1.57B | $11.87B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-39M | $-12.39B | $5.26B | $559M | $4.45B |
| Gross Margin | 45.2% | 21.2% | 52.1% | 50.9% | 57.3% |
| Operating Margin | 17.1% | 18.9% | 49.3% | 44.1% | 52.9% |
| Forward P/E | 1.3x | 0.3x | 11.2x | 20.7x | 13.9x |
| Total Debt | $3M | $44.34B | $474M | $299M | $321M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $698K | $17.16B | $7.65B | $242M | $2.87B |
NAMM vs SBSW vs NEM vs HL vs AEM — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 25 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Namib Minerals Ordi… (NAMM) | 100 | 14.4 | -85.6% |
| Sibanye Stillwater … (SBSW) | 100 | 218.7 | +118.7% |
| Newmont Corporation (NEM) | 100 | 221.0 | +121.0% |
| Hecla Mining Company (HL) | 100 | 362.1 | +262.1% |
| Agnico Eagle Mines … (AEM) | 100 | 163.8 | +63.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NAMM vs SBSW vs NEM vs HL vs AEM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
NAMM ranks third and is worth considering specifically for dividends.
- 10.4% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs AEM's 0.7%
SBSW is the clearest fit if your priority is value.
- Lower P/E (0.3x vs 20.7x)
Among these 5 stocks, NEM doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
HL carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 53.0%, EPS growth 7.7%, 3Y rev CAGR 25.6%
- 373.7% 10Y total return vs AEM's 363.7%
- 53.0% revenue growth vs SBSW's 7.1%
- +278.6% vs NAMM's -85.5%
AEM is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- Dividend streak 2 yrs, beta 0.66, yield 0.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.66, Low D/E 1.3%, current ratio 2.02x
- PEG 0.42 vs NEM's 0.87
- Beta 0.66, yield 0.7%, current ratio 2.02x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 53.0% revenue growth vs SBSW's 7.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (0.3x vs 20.7x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 37.5% margin vs SBSW's -5.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.66 vs NAMM's 1.94 | |
| Dividends | 10.4% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs AEM's 0.7% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +278.6% vs NAMM's -85.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 16.3% ROA vs NAMM's -67.7% |
NAMM vs SBSW vs NEM vs HL vs AEM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
NAMM vs SBSW vs NEM vs HL vs AEM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
AEM leads in 2 of 6 categories
NEM leads 1 • NAMM leads 1 • SBSW leads 0 • HL leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AEM leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SBSW and NAMM operate at a comparable scale, with $238.3B and -$24M in trailing revenue. AEM is the more profitable business, keeping 37.5% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to SBSW's -5.2%. On growth, AEM holds the edge at +64.9% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | -$24M | $238.3B | $17.2B | $1.6B | $11.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$7M | $63.5B | $12.7B | $853M | $7.9B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$39M | -$12.4B | $5.3B | $559M | $4.4B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$604,001 | -$9.5B | $12.9B | $472M | $4.4B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +45.2% | +21.2% | +52.1% | +50.9% | +57.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +17.1% | +18.9% | +49.3% | +44.1% | +52.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +4.2% | -5.2% | +30.5% | +35.6% | +37.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +10.6% | -4.0% | +75.0% | +30.0% | +37.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -13.2% | +25.4% | -100.0% | +57.4% | +64.9% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +61.3% | -10.0% | -100.0% | -160.0% | +199.0% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — NAMM and SBSW each lead in 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 18.2x trailing earnings, NEM trades at a 52% valuation discount to HL's 38.0x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), AEM offers better value at 0.65x vs NEM's 1.42x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $85M | $9.4B | $129.1B | $12.5B | $96.8B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $88M | $11.1B | $121.9B | $12.5B | $94.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 24.13x | -32.19x | 18.18x | 37.98x | 21.81x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 1.31x | 0.25x | 11.17x | 20.75x | 13.94x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 1.42x | — | 0.65x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 4.65x | 5.73x | 9.29x | 17.75x | 11.82x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.99x | 1.29x | 5.84x | 8.77x | 8.13x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 3.51x | 3.79x | 4.71x | 3.93x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 9.34x | 91.89x | 17.69x | 40.23x | 22.71x |
Profitability & Efficiency
NEM leads this category, winning 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
HL delivers a 22.5% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $23 in annual profit, vs $-28 for SBSW. AEM carries lower financial leverage with a 0.01x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to SBSW's 1.00x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), NEM scores 9/9 vs SBSW's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | -28.1% | +15.6% | +22.5% | +19.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -67.7% | -8.3% | +9.4% | +16.3% | +13.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | +22.9% | +24.9% | +15.3% | +21.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +6.2% | +19.1% | +20.7% | +16.8% | +20.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 6 | 9 | 8 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 1.00x | 0.01x | 0.12x | 0.01x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $2M | $27.2B | -$7.2B | $57M | -$2.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $698,000 | $17.2B | $7.6B | $242M | $2.9B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $3M | $44.3B | $474M | $299M | $321M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 9.65x | 1.31x | 50.54x | 19.04x | 73.32x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
AEM leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in AEM five years ago would be worth $29,406 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,445 for NAMM. Over the past 12 months, HL leads with a +278.6% total return vs NAMM's -85.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors AEM at 49.4% vs NAMM's -47.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +62.9% | -5.7% | +15.4% | -1.4% | +13.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -85.5% | +173.7% | +122.4% | +278.6% | +69.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -85.5% | +42.1% | +148.4% | +203.4% | +233.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -85.5% | -17.8% | +81.7% | +161.8% | +194.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -85.5% | +31.5% | +302.6% | +373.7% | +363.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -47.5% | +12.4% | +35.4% | +44.8% | +49.4% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — NEM and AEM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
AEM is the less volatile stock with a 0.66 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than NAMM's 1.94 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. NEM currently trades 86.4% from its 52-week high vs NAMM's 2.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.94x | 1.44x | 0.86x | 1.51x | 0.66x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $55.00 | $21.29 | $134.88 | $34.17 | $255.24 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.91 | $4.52 | $48.27 | $4.68 | $103.38 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +2.9% | +62.6% | +86.4% | +54.5% | +75.7% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 34.4 | 54.6 | 51.5 | 46.2 | 41.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 657K | 5.7M | 9.1M | 15.2M | 2.5M |
Analyst Outlook
NAMM leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: SBSW as "Hold", NEM as "Buy", HL as "Hold", AEM as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 37.2% upside for SBSW (target: $18) vs 18.0% for NEM (target: $138). For income investors, NAMM offers the higher dividend yield at 10.42% vs SBSW's 0.18%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $18.27 | $137.50 | $22.21 | $237.71 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 12 | 36 | 26 | 31 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +10.4% | +0.2% | +0.9% | +0.1% | +0.7% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.17 | $0.40 | $1.00 | $0.01 | $1.45 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +100.0% | 0.0% | +1.8% | +0.0% | +0.7% |
AEM leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Total Returns). NEM leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 2 tied.
NAMM vs SBSW vs NEM vs HL vs AEM: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NAMM or SBSW or NEM or HL or AEM a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Hecla Mining Company (HL) is the stronger pick with 53.
0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 7. 1% for Sibanye Stillwater Limited (SBSW). Newmont Corporation (NEM) offers the better valuation at 18. 2x trailing P/E (11. 2x 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 — NAMM or SBSW or NEM or HL or AEM?
On trailing P/E, Newmont Corporation (NEM) is the cheapest at 18.
2x versus Hecla Mining Company at 38. 0x. On forward P/E, Sibanye Stillwater Limited is actually cheaper at 0. 3x — 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: Agnico Eagle Mines Limited wins at 0. 42x versus Newmont Corporation's 0. 87x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — NAMM or SBSW or NEM or HL or AEM?
Over the past 5 years, Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (AEM) delivered a total return of +194.
1%, compared to -85. 5% for Namib Minerals Ordinary Shares (NAMM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: HL returned +373. 7% versus NAMM's -85. 5%. 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 — NAMM or SBSW or NEM or HL or AEM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (AEM) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
66β versus Namib Minerals Ordinary Shares's 1. 94β — meaning NAMM is approximately 195% 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 100% for Sibanye Stillwater Limited — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — NAMM or SBSW or NEM or HL or AEM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Hecla Mining Company (HL) is pulling ahead at 53.
0% versus 7. 1% for Sibanye Stillwater Limited (SBSW). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Hecla Mining Company grew EPS 765. 7% year-over-year, compared to -1. 2% for Namib Minerals Ordinary Shares. 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 — NAMM or SBSW or NEM or HL or AEM?
Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (AEM) is the more profitable company, earning 37.
5% net margin versus -4. 0% for Sibanye Stillwater Limited — 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 17. 1% for NAMM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AEM leads at 58. 1%, 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 NAMM or SBSW or NEM or HL 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, Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (AEM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 42x versus Newmont Corporation's 0. 87x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Sibanye Stillwater Limited (SBSW) trades at 0. 3x forward P/E versus 20. 7x for Hecla Mining Company — 20. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SBSW: 37. 2% to $18. 27.
08Which pays a better dividend — NAMM or SBSW or NEM or HL or AEM?
In this comparison, NAMM (10.
4% yield), NEM (0. 9% yield), AEM (0. 7% yield), SBSW (0. 2% yield) pay a dividend. HL does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is NAMM or SBSW or NEM or HL or AEM better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (AEM) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
66), 0. 7% yield, +363. 7% 10Y return). Namib Minerals Ordinary Shares (NAMM) carries a higher beta of 1. 94 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (AEM: +363. 7%, NAMM: -85. 5%), 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 NAMM and SBSW and NEM and HL and AEM?
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.
In terms of investment character: NAMM is a small-cap high-growth stock; SBSW is a small-cap quality compounder stock; NEM is a mid-cap high-growth stock; HL is a mid-cap high-growth stock; AEM is a mid-cap high-growth stock. NAMM, NEM, AEM pay a dividend while SBSW, HL do 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.
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.