RIO vs BHP vs VALE vs FCX vs CLF

For growth investors, Freeport-McMoRan Inc.

(FCX) is the stronger pick with 1. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -7. 9% for BHP Group Limited (BHP). Rio Tinto Group (RIO) offers the better valuation at 14. 9x trailing P/E (12. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX) a "Buy" — based on 41 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, Rio Tinto Group (RIO) is the cheapest at 14.

9x versus Freeport-McMoRan Inc. at 40. 1x. On forward P/E, Vale S. A. is actually cheaper at 8. 2x — 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: Freeport-McMoRan Inc. wins at 0. 75x versus BHP Group Limited's 5. 94x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Freeport-McMoRan Inc.

(FCX) delivered a total return of +51. 5%, compared to -45. 5% for Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (CLF). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: VALE returned +447. 4% versus CLF's +227. 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), Rio Tinto Group (RIO) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

98β versus Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. 's 2. 36β — meaning CLF is approximately 141% more volatile than RIO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Rio Tinto Group (RIO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 24% versus 115% for Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Freeport-McMoRan Inc.

(FCX) is pulling ahead at 1. 1% versus -7. 9% for BHP Group Limited (BHP). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Freeport-McMoRan Inc. grew EPS 16. 9% year-over-year, compared to -91. 1% for Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, FCX leads at 3. 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.

Rio Tinto Group (RIO) is the more profitable company, earning 21.

5% net margin versus -7. 9% for Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. — meaning it keeps 21. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BHP leads at 38. 0% versus -7. 5% for CLF. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — BHP leads at 82. 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.

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, Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 75x versus BHP Group Limited's 5. 94x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Vale S. A. (VALE) trades at 8. 2x forward P/E versus 22. 5x for Freeport-McMoRan Inc. — 14. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FCX: 10. 0% to $67. 00.

In this comparison, VALE (5.

1% yield), RIO (4. 1% yield), BHP (3. 0% yield), FCX (1. 0% yield) pay a dividend. CLF does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Rio Tinto Group (RIO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

98), 4. 1% yield, +396. 1% 10Y return). Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (CLF) carries a higher beta of 2. 36 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (RIO: +396. 1%, CLF: +227. 4%), 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.

In terms of investment character: RIO is a large-cap deep-value stock; BHP is a large-cap quality compounder stock; VALE is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; FCX is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; CLF is a small-cap quality compounder stock. RIO, BHP, VALE, FCX pay a dividend while CLF 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.