AUMN vs. GFI

In the year-to-date period, AUMN achieves a 60.60% return, which is significantly lower than GFI's 69.75% return. Over the past 10 years, AUMN has underperformed GFI with an annualized return of -34.46%, while GFI has yielded a comparatively higher 23.11% annualized return.

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Golden Minerals Company (AUMN) and Gold Fields Limited (GFI). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

The current AUMN Sharpe Ratio is -0.56, which is lower than the GFI Sharpe Ratio of 0.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AUMN and GFI, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

AUMN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GFI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.47%.

The maximum AUMN drawdown since its inception was -99.99%, which is greater than GFI's maximum drawdown of -86.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AUMN and GFI. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.

Golden Minerals Company (AUMN) has a higher volatility of 40.32% compared to Gold Fields Limited (GFI) at 18.54%. This indicates that AUMN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GFI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Golden Minerals Company and Gold Fields Limited. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.