Gold Fields Competitors

Franco-Nevada (NYSE:FNV) and Gold Fields (NYSE:GFI) are both large-cap basic materials companies, but which is the superior investment? We will contrast the two companies based on the strength of their profitability, analyst recommendations, risk, earnings, valuation, institutional ownership and dividends.

Valuation & Earnings

This table compares Franco-Nevada and Gold Fields' gross revenue, earnings per share and valuation.

Franco-Nevada has higher earnings, but lower revenue than Gold Fields. Gold Fields is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than Franco-Nevada, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

Risk and Volatility

Franco-Nevada has a beta of 0.48, indicating that its stock price is 52% less volatile than the S&P 500. Comparatively, Gold Fields has a beta of 0.48, indicating that its stock price is 52% less volatile than the S&P 500.

Insider & Institutional Ownership

64.8% of Franco-Nevada shares are owned by institutional investors. Comparatively, 34.4% of Gold Fields shares are owned by institutional investors. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that endowments, large money managers and hedge funds believe a company is poised for long-term growth.

Profitability

This table compares Franco-Nevada and Gold Fields' net margins, return on equity and return on assets.

Analyst Recommendations

This is a summary of current recommendations and price targets for Franco-Nevada and Gold Fields, as provided by MarketBeat.com.

Franco-Nevada currently has a consensus price target of $161.7273, indicating a potential upside of 5.57%. Gold Fields has a consensus price target of $13.1375, indicating a potential upside of 12.00%. Given Gold Fields' higher possible upside, analysts clearly believe Gold Fields is more favorable than Franco-Nevada.

Dividends

Franco-Nevada pays an annual dividend of $0.78 per share and has a dividend yield of 0.5%. Gold Fields pays an annual dividend of $0.34 per share and has a dividend yield of 2.9%. Franco-Nevada pays out 42.9% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Gold Fields pays out 81.0% of its earnings in the form of a dividend, suggesting it may not have sufficient earnings to cover its dividend payment in the future. Franco-Nevada has raised its dividend for 7 consecutive years and Gold Fields has raised its dividend for 2 consecutive years.

Summary

Franco-Nevada beats Gold Fields on 12 of the 15 factors compared between the two stocks.

Wheaton Precious Metals (NYSE:WPM) and Gold Fields (NYSE:GFI) are both large-cap basic materials companies, but which is the better business? We will compare the two companies based on the strength of their institutional ownership, risk, earnings, profitability, analyst recommendations, dividends and valuation.

Volatility & Risk

Wheaton Precious Metals has a beta of 0.55, indicating that its share price is 45% less volatile than the S&P 500. Comparatively, Gold Fields has a beta of 0.48, indicating that its share price is 52% less volatile than the S&P 500.

Dividends

Wheaton Precious Metals pays an annual dividend of $0.32 per share and has a dividend yield of 0.7%. Gold Fields pays an annual dividend of $0.34 per share and has a dividend yield of 2.9%. Wheaton Precious Metals pays out 57.1% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Gold Fields pays out 81.0% of its earnings in the form of a dividend, suggesting it may not have sufficient earnings to cover its dividend payment in the future. Wheaton Precious Metals has raised its dividend for 1 consecutive years and Gold Fields has raised its dividend for 2 consecutive years. Gold Fields is clearly the better dividend stock, given its higher yield and longer track record of dividend growth.

Earnings & Valuation

This table compares Wheaton Precious Metals and Gold Fields' gross revenue, earnings per share and valuation.

Gold Fields has higher revenue and earnings than Wheaton Precious Metals. Gold Fields is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than Wheaton Precious Metals, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

Profitability

This table compares Wheaton Precious Metals and Gold Fields' net margins, return on equity and return on assets.

Institutional & Insider Ownership

59.5% of Wheaton Precious Metals shares are held by institutional investors. Comparatively, 34.4% of Gold Fields shares are held by institutional investors. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that large money managers, hedge funds and endowments believe a stock will outperform the market over the long term.

Analyst Recommendations

This is a summary of recent ratings for Wheaton Precious Metals and Gold Fields, as provided by MarketBeat.com.

Wheaton Precious Metals presently has a consensus target price of $57.7273, suggesting a potential upside of 21.35%. Gold Fields has a consensus target price of $13.1375, suggesting a potential upside of 12.00%. Given Wheaton Precious Metals' stronger consensus rating and higher probable upside, analysts plainly believe Wheaton Precious Metals is more favorable than Gold Fields.

Summary

Wheaton Precious Metals beats Gold Fields on 12 of the 16 factors compared between the two stocks.

Agnico Eagle Mines (NYSE:AEM) and Gold Fields (NYSE:GFI) are both large-cap basic materials companies, but which is the superior business? We will contrast the two companies based on the strength of their analyst recommendations, risk, earnings, dividends, institutional ownership, valuation and profitability.

Earnings and Valuation

This table compares Agnico Eagle Mines and Gold Fields' top-line revenue, earnings per share (EPS) and valuation.

Agnico Eagle Mines has higher earnings, but lower revenue than Gold Fields. Gold Fields is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than Agnico Eagle Mines, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

Dividends

Agnico Eagle Mines pays an annual dividend of $0.75 per share and has a dividend yield of 1.0%. Gold Fields pays an annual dividend of $0.34 per share and has a dividend yield of 2.9%. Agnico Eagle Mines pays out 77.3% of its earnings in the form of a dividend, suggesting it may not have sufficient earnings to cover its dividend payment in the future. Gold Fields pays out 81.0% of its earnings in the form of a dividend, suggesting it may not have sufficient earnings to cover its dividend payment in the future. Agnico Eagle Mines has raised its dividend for 2 consecutive years and Gold Fields has raised its dividend for 2 consecutive years.

Profitability

This table compares Agnico Eagle Mines and Gold Fields' net margins, return on equity and return on assets.

Insider and Institutional Ownership

61.6% of Agnico Eagle Mines shares are owned by institutional investors. Comparatively, 34.4% of Gold Fields shares are owned by institutional investors. 0.5% of Agnico Eagle Mines shares are owned by company insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that endowments, large money managers and hedge funds believe a stock is poised for long-term growth.

Risk & Volatility

Agnico Eagle Mines has a beta of 0.63, indicating that its stock price is 37% less volatile than the S&P 500. Comparatively, Gold Fields has a beta of 0.48, indicating that its stock price is 52% less volatile than the S&P 500.

Analyst Ratings

This is a summary of recent recommendations for Agnico Eagle Mines and Gold Fields, as provided by MarketBeat.com.

Agnico Eagle Mines presently has a consensus target price of $87.8571, suggesting a potential upside of 19.94%. Gold Fields has a consensus target price of $13.1375, suggesting a potential upside of 12.00%. Given Agnico Eagle Mines' stronger consensus rating and higher possible upside, equities analysts clearly believe Agnico Eagle Mines is more favorable than Gold Fields.

Summary

Agnico Eagle Mines beats Gold Fields on 13 of the 16 factors compared between the two stocks.

Sibanye Stillwater (NYSE:SBSW) and Gold Fields (NYSE:GFI) are both large-cap basic materials companies, but which is the superior business? We will contrast the two businesses based on the strength of their institutional ownership, analyst recommendations, valuation, dividends, risk, profitability and earnings.

Volatility & Risk

Sibanye Stillwater has a beta of 1.49, meaning that its stock price is 49% more volatile than the S&P 500. Comparatively, Gold Fields has a beta of 0.48, meaning that its stock price is 52% less volatile than the S&P 500.

Profitability

This table compares Sibanye Stillwater and Gold Fields' net margins, return on equity and return on assets.

Institutional and Insider Ownership

10.7% of Sibanye Stillwater shares are held by institutional investors. Comparatively, 34.4% of Gold Fields shares are held by institutional investors. 0.1% of Sibanye Stillwater shares are held by company insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that endowments, hedge funds and large money managers believe a company will outperform the market over the long term.

Dividends

Sibanye Stillwater pays an annual dividend of $1.38 per share and has a dividend yield of 7.2%. Gold Fields pays an annual dividend of $0.34 per share and has a dividend yield of 2.9%. Gold Fields pays out 81.0% of its earnings in the form of a dividend, suggesting it may not have sufficient earnings to cover its dividend payment in the future. Sibanye Stillwater has raised its dividend for 1 consecutive years and Gold Fields has raised its dividend for 2 consecutive years.

Earnings and Valuation

This table compares Sibanye Stillwater and Gold Fields' revenue, earnings per share (EPS) and valuation.

Gold Fields has lower revenue, but higher earnings than Sibanye Stillwater.

Analyst Ratings

This is a summary of current ratings and price targets for Sibanye Stillwater and Gold Fields, as provided by MarketBeat.

Sibanye Stillwater presently has a consensus price target of $25.00, indicating a potential upside of 29.87%. Gold Fields has a consensus price target of $13.1375, indicating a potential upside of 12.00%. Given Sibanye Stillwater's stronger consensus rating and higher probable upside, equities research analysts clearly believe Sibanye Stillwater is more favorable than Gold Fields.

Summary

Sibanye Stillwater beats Gold Fields on 8 of the 12 factors compared between the two stocks.

Kirkland Lake Gold (NYSE:KL) and Gold Fields (NYSE:GFI) are both large-cap basic materials companies, but which is the better stock? We will compare the two businesses based on the strength of their profitability, dividends, institutional ownership, risk, valuation, earnings and analyst recommendations.

Institutional & Insider Ownership

50.6% of Kirkland Lake Gold shares are owned by institutional investors. Comparatively, 34.4% of Gold Fields shares are owned by institutional investors. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that large money managers, endowments and hedge funds believe a stock is poised for long-term growth.

Valuation & Earnings

This table compares Kirkland Lake Gold and Gold Fields' revenue, earnings per share (EPS) and valuation.

Kirkland Lake Gold has higher earnings, but lower revenue than Gold Fields. Kirkland Lake Gold is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than Gold Fields, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

Profitability

This table compares Kirkland Lake Gold and Gold Fields' net margins, return on equity and return on assets.

Volatility & Risk

Kirkland Lake Gold has a beta of 0.72, suggesting that its share price is 28% less volatile than the S&P 500. Comparatively, Gold Fields has a beta of 0.48, suggesting that its share price is 52% less volatile than the S&P 500.

Analyst Recommendations

This is a summary of recent ratings and target prices for Kirkland Lake Gold and Gold Fields, as provided by MarketBeat.

Kirkland Lake Gold presently has a consensus target price of $70.00, suggesting a potential upside of 60.18%. Gold Fields has a consensus target price of $13.1375, suggesting a potential upside of 12.00%. Given Kirkland Lake Gold's stronger consensus rating and higher possible upside, research analysts plainly believe Kirkland Lake Gold is more favorable than Gold Fields.

Dividends

Kirkland Lake Gold pays an annual dividend of $0.75 per share and has a dividend yield of 1.7%. Gold Fields pays an annual dividend of $0.34 per share and has a dividend yield of 2.9%. Kirkland Lake Gold pays out 27.4% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Gold Fields pays out 81.0% of its earnings in the form of a dividend, suggesting it may not have sufficient earnings to cover its dividend payment in the future. Kirkland Lake Gold has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years and Gold Fields has raised its dividend for 2 consecutive years.

Summary

Kirkland Lake Gold beats Gold Fields on 13 of the 16 factors compared between the two stocks.

AngloGold Ashanti (NYSE:AU) and Gold Fields (NYSE:GFI) are both large-cap basic materials companies, but which is the superior investment? We will contrast the two businesses based on the strength of their institutional ownership, dividends, analyst recommendations, risk, profitability, valuation and earnings.

Dividends

AngloGold Ashanti pays an annual dividend of $0.37 per share and has a dividend yield of 1.5%. Gold Fields pays an annual dividend of $0.34 per share and has a dividend yield of 2.9%. AngloGold Ashanti pays out 40.7% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Gold Fields pays out 81.0% of its earnings in the form of a dividend, suggesting it may not have sufficient earnings to cover its dividend payment in the future. AngloGold Ashanti has increased its dividend for 1 consecutive years and Gold Fields has increased its dividend for 2 consecutive years. Gold Fields is clearly the better dividend stock, given its higher yield and longer track record of dividend growth.

Earnings & Valuation

This table compares AngloGold Ashanti and Gold Fields' gross revenue, earnings per share and valuation.

Gold Fields has lower revenue, but higher earnings than AngloGold Ashanti. AngloGold Ashanti is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than Gold Fields, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

Insider and Institutional Ownership

29.6% of AngloGold Ashanti shares are owned by institutional investors. Comparatively, 34.4% of Gold Fields shares are owned by institutional investors. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that hedge funds, large money managers and endowments believe a stock will outperform the market over the long term.

Profitability

This table compares AngloGold Ashanti and Gold Fields' net margins, return on equity and return on assets.

Analyst Ratings

This is a summary of recent recommendations and price targets for AngloGold Ashanti and Gold Fields, as reported by MarketBeat.com.

AngloGold Ashanti presently has a consensus target price of $33.8225, suggesting a potential upside of 34.97%. Gold Fields has a consensus target price of $13.1375, suggesting a potential upside of 12.00%. Given AngloGold Ashanti's stronger consensus rating and higher probable upside, equities analysts clearly believe AngloGold Ashanti is more favorable than Gold Fields.

Risk & Volatility

AngloGold Ashanti has a beta of 0.43, suggesting that its stock price is 57% less volatile than the S&P 500. Comparatively, Gold Fields has a beta of 0.48, suggesting that its stock price is 52% less volatile than the S&P 500.

Summary

Gold Fields beats AngloGold Ashanti on 7 of the 13 factors compared between the two stocks.