NGD vs AG

For growth investors, First Majestic Silver Corp.

(AG) is the stronger pick with 128. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 59. 7% for New Gold Inc. (NGD). First Majestic Silver Corp. (AG) offers the better valuation at 60. 5x trailing P/E (20. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate New Gold Inc. (NGD) a "Buy" — based on 18 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, First Majestic Silver Corp.

(AG) is the cheapest at 60. 5x versus New Gold Inc. at 64. 9x. On forward P/E, New Gold Inc. is actually cheaper at 6. 6x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, New Gold Inc.

(NGD) delivered a total return of +398. 9%, compared to +33. 6% for First Majestic Silver Corp. (AG). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AG returned +105. 5% versus NGD's +97. 4%. 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), New Gold Inc.

(NGD) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 97β versus First Majestic Silver Corp. 's 1. 56β — meaning AG is approximately 61% more volatile than NGD relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, First Majestic Silver Corp. (AG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 10% versus 21% for New Gold Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), First Majestic Silver Corp.

(AG) is pulling ahead at 128. 2% versus 59. 7% for New Gold Inc. (NGD). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: New Gold Inc. grew EPS 671. 4% year-over-year, compared to 202. 9% for First Majestic Silver Corp.. Over a 3-year CAGR, NGD leads at 34. 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.

New Gold Inc.

(NGD) is the more profitable company, earning 58. 1% net margin versus 13. 1% for First Majestic Silver Corp. — meaning it keeps 58. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NGD leads at 44. 4% versus 27. 8% for AG. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NGD leads at 53. 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.

On forward earnings alone, New Gold Inc.

(NGD) trades at 6. 6x forward P/E versus 20. 2x for First Majestic Silver Corp. — 13. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NGD: 36. 3% to $12. 38.

None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.

All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, New Gold Inc.

(NGD) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 97)). First Majestic Silver Corp. (AG) carries a higher beta of 1. 56 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (NGD: +97. 4%, AG: +105. 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.

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.