CGG.TO vs. GFI
Compare and contrast key facts about China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd. (CGG.TO) and Gold Fields Limited (GFI).
Performance
CGG.TO vs. GFI - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
CGG.TO vs. GFI - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGG.TO China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd. | 5.58% | 275.00% | 33.51% | 52.96% | 22.48% | 94.07% | 54.24% | -25.32% | -32.77% | 18.69% |
GFI Gold Fields Limited | 14.89% | 224.81% | 1.78% | 41.71% | 4.33% | 22.22% | 40.60% | 80.16% | -9.69% | 36.04% |
Different Trading Currencies
CGG.TO is traded in CAD, while GFI is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the GFI values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.
Fundamentals
CGG.TO:
CA$11.56B
GFI:
$42.56B
CGG.TO:
CA$1.03
GFI:
$5.39
CGG.TO:
28.28
GFI:
8.83
CGG.TO:
0.89
GFI:
0.14
CGG.TO:
9.48
GFI:
3.05
CGG.TO:
5.30
GFI:
5.05
CGG.TO:
CA$1.22B
GFI:
$13.98B
CGG.TO:
CA$590.11M
GFI:
$7.34B
CGG.TO:
CA$761.35M
GFI:
$8.04B
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGG.TO achieves a 5.58% return, which is significantly lower than GFI's 14.89% return. Over the past 10 years, CGG.TO has underperformed GFI with an annualized return of 31.99%, while GFI has yielded a comparatively higher 33.72% annualized return.
CGG.TO
- 1D
- 4.03%
- 1M
- -19.63%
- YTD
- 5.58%
- 6M
- 14.76%
- 1Y
- 201.28%
- 3Y*
- 86.16%
- 5Y*
- 57.23%
- 10Y*
- 31.99%
GFI
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- -1.75%
- YTD
- 14.89%
- 6M
- 16.61%
- 1Y
- 115.02%
- 3Y*
- 59.78%
- 5Y*
- 44.18%
- 10Y*
- 33.72%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CGG.TO vs. GFI — Risk / Return Rank
CGG.TO
GFI
CGG.TO vs. GFI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd. (CGG.TO) 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.
| CGG.TO | GFI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 3.34 | 1.96 | +1.39 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 3.24 | 2.30 | +0.94 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.45 | 1.31 | +0.13 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.43 | 3.36 | +1.07 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 14.56 | 10.51 | +4.05 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CGG.TO | GFI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.34 | 1.96 | +1.39 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.14 | 0.90 | +0.25 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.56 | 0.63 | -0.07 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.00 |
Correlation
The correlation between CGG.TO and GFI is 0.36, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Dividends
CGG.TO vs. GFI - Dividend Comparison
CGG.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.38%, less than GFI's 3.87% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGG.TO China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd. | 0.38% | 0.40% | 0.00% | 8.87% | 8.06% | 4.42% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
GFI Gold Fields Limited | 3.87% | 1.77% | 2.94% | 2.87% | 3.40% | 3.24% | 1.72% | 0.81% | 1.61% | 1.41% | 1.35% | 0.60% |
Drawdowns
CGG.TO vs. GFI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGG.TO drawdown since its inception was -92.81%, which is greater than GFI's maximum drawdown of -84.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGG.TO and GFI.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGG.TO | GFI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -92.81% | -88.05% | -4.76% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -44.05% | -34.63% | -9.42% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -47.99% | -56.22% | +8.23% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -87.47% | -63.09% | -24.38% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -32.33% | -20.39% | -11.94% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -51.53% | -44.42% | -7.11% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 13.39% | 11.04% | +2.35% |
Volatility
CGG.TO vs. GFI - Volatility Comparison
China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd. (CGG.TO) and Gold Fields Limited (GFI) have volatilities of 18.94% and 19.54%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| CGG.TO | GFI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 18.94% | 19.54% | -0.60% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 44.53% | 47.25% | -2.72% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 60.65% | 59.15% | +1.50% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 50.53% | 49.56% | +0.97% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 57.83% | 53.94% | +3.89% |
Financials
CGG.TO vs. GFI - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd. 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.
Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities
CGG.TO vs. GFI - Profitability Comparison
CGG.TO - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd. reported a gross profit of 195.41M and revenue of 345.03M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 56.6%.
GFI - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Gold Fields Limited reported a gross profit of 3.00B and revenue of 5.29B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 56.7%.
CGG.TO - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd. reported an operating income of 174.78M and revenue of 345.03M, resulting in an operating margin of 50.7%.
GFI - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Gold Fields Limited reported an operating income of 2.71B and revenue of 5.29B, resulting in an operating margin of 51.3%.
CGG.TO - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd. reported a net income of 141.14M and revenue of 345.03M, resulting in a net margin of 40.9%.
GFI - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Gold Fields Limited reported a net income of 2.55B and revenue of 5.29B, resulting in a net margin of 48.2%.