RGLD vs FNV

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

4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 44. 6% for Royal Gold, Inc. (RGLD). Royal Gold, Inc. (RGLD) offers the better valuation at 33. 8x trailing P/E (19. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Royal Gold, Inc. (RGLD) a "Buy" — based on 28 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, Royal Gold, Inc.

(RGLD) is the cheapest at 33. 8x versus Franco-Nevada Corporation at 38. 4x. On forward P/E, Royal Gold, Inc. is actually cheaper at 19. 0x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Franco-Nevada Corporation wins at 0. 98x versus Royal Gold, Inc. 's 2. 44x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Royal Gold, Inc.

(RGLD) delivered a total return of +102. 7%, compared to +61. 2% for Franco-Nevada Corporation (FNV). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RGLD returned +301. 2% versus FNV's +248. 0%. 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), Franco-Nevada Corporation (FNV) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

56β versus Royal Gold, Inc. 's 0. 63β — meaning RGLD is approximately 12% more volatile than FNV relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Franco-Nevada Corporation (FNV) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 12% for Royal Gold, Inc. — 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 44. 6% for Royal Gold, Inc. (RGLD). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Franco-Nevada Corporation grew EPS 104. 2% year-over-year, compared to 32. 5% for Royal Gold, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, RGLD leads at 20. 0% 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.

Franco-Nevada Corporation (FNV) is the more profitable company, earning 61.

1% net margin versus 45. 2% for Royal Gold, Inc. — meaning it keeps 61. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: FNV leads at 71. 0% versus 61. 9% for RGLD. 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, Franco-Nevada Corporation (FNV) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 98x versus Royal Gold, Inc. 's 2. 44x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Royal Gold, Inc. (RGLD) trades at 19. 0x forward P/E versus 26. 0x for Franco-Nevada Corporation — 7. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for RGLD: 34. 9% to $304. 80.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Royal Gold, Inc. (RGLD) offers the highest yield at 0. 8%, versus 0. 6% for Franco-Nevada Corporation (FNV).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Franco-Nevada Corporation (FNV) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

56), 0. 6% yield, +248. 0% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (FNV: +248. 0%, RGLD: +301. 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.