Industrial Materials
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
LZM vs RIO vs VALE vs FCX vs SCCO vs KO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Industrial Materials
Industrial Materials
Copper
Copper
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
LZM vs RIO vs VALE vs FCX vs SCCO vs KO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Industrial Materials | Industrial Materials | Industrial Materials | Copper | Copper | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic |
| Market Cap | $353M | $210.29B | $68.56B | $98.32B | $156.78B | $355.61B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1M | $107.92B | $39.53B | $26.42B | $13.42B | $49.28B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-60M | $20.96B | $2.79B | $2.73B | $4.33B | $13.70B |
| Gross Margin | -51.3% | 27.7% | 34.5% | 27.8% | 56.7% | 61.7% |
| Operating Margin | -55.8% | 27.2% | 27.8% | 27.8% | 52.2% | 29.3% |
| Forward P/E | — | 12.4x | 7.8x | 25.7x | 26.2x | 25.3x |
| Total Debt | $58M | $13.86B | $19.39B | $11.50B | $7.41B | $45.49B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $20M | $6.83B | $7.40B | $3.35B | $4.30B | $10.27B |
LZM vs RIO vs VALE vs FCX vs SCCO vs KO — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Dec 21 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lifezone Metals Lim… (LZM) | 100 | 39.7 | -60.3% |
| Rio Tinto Group (RIO) | 100 | 157.4 | +57.4% |
| Vale S.A. (VALE) | 100 | 112.1 | +12.1% |
| Freeport-McMoRan In… (FCX) | 100 | 163.9 | +63.9% |
| Southern Copper Cor… (SCCO) | 100 | 323.1 | +223.1% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 139.5 | +39.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: LZM vs RIO vs VALE vs FCX vs SCCO vs KO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
LZM ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth.
- 6.5% revenue growth vs RIO's -0.7%
RIO is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.28, Low D/E 23.9%, current ratio 1.63x
VALE carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 2 yrs, beta 1.24, yield 5.3%
- Beta 1.24, yield 5.3%, current ratio 1.15x
- Lower P/E (7.8x vs 25.3x)
- Beta 1.24 vs LZM's 2.57, lower leverage
FCX is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.86 vs KO's 2.26
SCCO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 17.4%, EPS growth 24.5%, 3Y rev CAGR 10.1%
- 7.6% 10Y total return vs FCX's 5.9%
- 32.3% margin vs LZM's -50.0%
- +104.8% vs LZM's -5.1%
KO doesn't hold a clear category lead here; it's more of a secondary option in this specific comparison.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 6.5% revenue growth vs RIO's -0.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (7.8x vs 25.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 32.3% margin vs LZM's -50.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.24 vs LZM's 2.57, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 5.3% yield, 2-year raise streak, vs KO's 2.5%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +104.8% vs LZM's -5.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 21.4% ROA vs LZM's -36.2%, ROIC 38.6% vs -13.1% |
LZM vs RIO vs VALE vs FCX vs SCCO vs KO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
LZM vs RIO vs VALE vs FCX vs SCCO vs KO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 6 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
SCCO leads in 3 of 6 categories
VALE leads 1 • KO leads 1 • LZM leads 0 • RIO leads 0 • FCX leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SCCO leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RIO is the larger business by revenue, generating $107.9B annually — 90114.9x LZM's $1M. SCCO is the more profitable business, keeping 32.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to LZM's -50.0%. On growth, LZM holds the edge at +7.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1M | $107.9B | $39.5B | $26.4B | $13.4B | $49.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$64M | $41.0B | $14.2B | $9.6B | $7.9B | $15.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$60M | $21.0B | $2.8B | $2.7B | $4.3B | $13.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$66M | $12.7B | $3.4B | $6.2B | $3.4B | $12.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | -51.3% | +27.7% | +34.5% | +27.8% | +56.7% | +61.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -55.8% | +27.2% | +27.8% | +27.8% | +52.2% | +29.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -50.0% | +19.4% | +7.1% | +10.3% | +32.3% | +27.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -55.3% | +11.8% | +8.5% | +23.6% | +25.5% | +25.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +7.1% | +1.1% | +14.1% | +12.2% | +39.0% | +12.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +56.8% | -21.6% | +33.3% | +154.2% | +54.5% | +18.2% |
Valuation Metrics
VALE leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 14.9x trailing earnings, RIO trades at a 67% valuation discount to FCX's 45.0x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), FCX offers better value at 1.50x vs KO's 2.43x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $353M | $210.3B | $68.6B | $98.3B | $156.8B | $355.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $392M | $217.3B | $80.6B | $106.5B | $159.9B | $390.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -23.12x | 14.90x | 27.09x | 45.01x | 36.22x | 27.18x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 12.38x | 7.78x | 25.71x | 26.16x | 25.27x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.94x | — | 1.50x | 1.73x | 2.43x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 10.49x | 5.71x | 12.48x | 20.32x | 26.39x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 334.25x | 3.92x | 1.79x | 3.82x | 11.68x | 7.42x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 4.31x | 2.97x | 1.95x | 3.21x | 14.33x | 10.40x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 35.18x | 22.41x | 88.10x | 45.75x | 67.15x |
Profitability & Efficiency
SCCO leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
SCCO delivers a 42.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $42 in annual profit, vs $-61 for LZM. RIO carries lower financial leverage with a 0.24x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to KO's 1.33x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), SCCO scores 8/9 vs LZM's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -60.9% | +33.8% | +7.2% | +8.9% | +42.0% | +41.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -36.2% | +17.4% | +3.1% | +4.7% | +21.4% | +13.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -13.1% | +18.6% | +17.7% | +12.8% | +38.6% | +15.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -16.8% | +17.2% | +16.0% | +12.4% | +39.2% | +17.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.80x | 0.24x | 0.56x | 0.37x | 0.67x | 1.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $38M | $7.0B | $12.0B | $8.1B | $3.1B | $35.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $20M | $6.8B | $7.4B | $3.4B | $4.3B | $10.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $58M | $13.9B | $19.4B | $11.5B | $7.4B | $45.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -4.30x | 14.58x | 6.92x | 17.68x | 19.33x | 10.70x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
SCCO leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in SCCO five years ago would be worth $33,068 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,986 for LZM. Over the past 12 months, SCCO leads with a +104.8% total return vs LZM's -5.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors SCCO at 43.8% vs LZM's -28.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -10.3% | +32.5% | +18.5% | +32.3% | +29.7% | +20.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -5.1% | +86.4% | +75.3% | +67.6% | +104.8% | +17.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -63.3% | +84.7% | +37.9% | +85.6% | +197.7% | +47.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -60.1% | +53.0% | +1.2% | +80.5% | +230.7% | +65.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -60.1% | +445.6% | +480.2% | +589.8% | +762.4% | +121.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -28.4% | +22.7% | +11.3% | +22.9% | +43.8% | +13.7% |
Risk & Volatility
KO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
KO is the less volatile stock with a -0.20 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than LZM's 2.57 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. KO currently trades 98.3% from its 52-week high vs LZM's 61.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.57x | 1.28x | 1.24x | 2.19x | 2.31x | -0.20x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $6.40 | $112.58 | $17.94 | $72.09 | $223.89 | $84.04 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $3.07 | $55.64 | $8.97 | $35.15 | $87.84 | $65.35 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +61.4% | +93.6% | +87.6% | +94.9% | +84.8% | +98.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 37.8 | 50.1 | 40.9 | 53.7 | 49.9 | 60.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 757K | 2.4M | 22.2M | 12.2M | 1.3M | 12.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — VALE and KO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: LZM as "Buy", RIO as "Hold", VALE as "Hold", FCX as "Buy", SCCO as "Hold", KO as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 78.1% upside for LZM (target: $7) vs -17.7% for SCCO (target: $156). For income investors, VALE offers the higher dividend yield at 5.32% vs FCX's 0.88%.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Hold | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $7.00 | $101.75 | $17.64 | $71.44 | $156.17 | $86.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 2 | 31 | 37 | 41 | 30 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +4.1% | +5.3% | +0.9% | +1.6% | +2.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 56 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $4.30 | $0.84 | $0.60 | $2.96 | $2.04 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.1% | 0.0% | +0.2% |
SCCO leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). VALE leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
LZM vs RIO vs VALE vs FCX vs SCCO vs KO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is LZM or RIO or VALE or FCX or SCCO or KO a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Lifezone Metals Limited (LZM) is the stronger pick with 652.
2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -0. 7% for Rio Tinto Group (RIO). Rio Tinto Group (RIO) offers the better valuation at 14. 9x trailing P/E (12. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Lifezone Metals Limited (LZM) a "Buy" — based on 2 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 — LZM or RIO or VALE or FCX or SCCO or KO?
On trailing P/E, Rio Tinto Group (RIO) is the cheapest at 14.
9x versus Freeport-McMoRan Inc. at 45. 0x. On forward P/E, Vale S. A. is actually cheaper at 7. 8x — 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. 86x versus The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 26x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — LZM or RIO or VALE or FCX or SCCO or KO?
Over the past 5 years, Southern Copper Corporation (SCCO) delivered a total return of +230.
7%, compared to -60. 1% for Lifezone Metals Limited (LZM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: SCCO returned +762. 4% versus LZM's -60. 1%. 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 — LZM or RIO or VALE or FCX or SCCO or KO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus Lifezone Metals Limited's 2. 57β — meaning LZM is approximately -1386% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Rio Tinto Group (RIO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 24% versus 133% for The Coca-Cola Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — LZM or RIO or VALE or FCX or SCCO or KO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Lifezone Metals Limited (LZM) is pulling ahead at 652.
2% versus -0. 7% for Rio Tinto Group (RIO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Lifezone Metals Limited grew EPS 71. 2% year-over-year, compared to -57. 7% for Vale S. A.. Over a 3-year CAGR, SCCO leads at 10. 1% 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 — LZM or RIO or VALE or FCX or SCCO or KO?
Southern Copper Corporation (SCCO) is the more profitable company, earning 32.
3% net margin versus -1289. 2% for Lifezone Metals Limited — meaning it keeps 32. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: SCCO leads at 52. 2% versus -1724. 9% for LZM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — KO leads at 61. 6%, 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 LZM or RIO or VALE or FCX or SCCO or KO 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, Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 86x versus The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 26x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Vale S. A. (VALE) trades at 7. 8x forward P/E versus 26. 2x for Southern Copper Corporation — 18. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for LZM: 78. 1% to $7. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — LZM or RIO or VALE or FCX or SCCO or KO?
In this comparison, VALE (5.
3% yield), RIO (4. 1% yield), KO (2. 5% yield), SCCO (1. 6% yield), FCX (0. 9% yield) pay a dividend. LZM does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is LZM or RIO or VALE or FCX or SCCO or KO better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
20), 2. 5% yield, +121. 1% 10Y return). Lifezone Metals Limited (LZM) carries a higher beta of 2. 57 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (KO: +121. 1%, LZM: -60. 1%), 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 LZM and RIO and VALE and FCX and SCCO and KO?
These companies operate in different sectors (LZM (Basic Materials) and RIO (Basic Materials) and VALE (Basic Materials) and FCX (Basic Materials) and SCCO (Basic Materials) and KO (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: LZM is a small-cap high-growth stock; RIO is a large-cap deep-value stock; VALE is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; FCX is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; SCCO is a mid-cap high-growth stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder stock. RIO, VALE, FCX, SCCO, KO pay a dividend while LZM 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.