GFI Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

DRDGold has a net margin of -- compared to Gold Fields's net margin of --. Gold Fields's return on equity of 25.25% beat DRDGold's return on equity of 27.94%.

Gold Fields has a consensus price target of $23.00, signalling upside risk potential of 3.6%. On the other hand DRDGold has an analysts' consensus of $16.25 which suggests that it could grow by 5.11%. Given that DRDGold has higher upside potential than Gold Fields, analysts believe DRDGold is more attractive than Gold Fields.

Gold Fields has a beta of 0.918, which suggesting that the stock is 8.163% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison DRDGold has a beta of 0.864, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 13.588%.

Gold Fields has a quarterly dividend of $0.38 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.45%. DRDGold offers a yield of 1.79% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.16 per share. Gold Fields pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. DRDGold pays out 55.07% of its earnings as a dividend. DRDGold's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Gold Fields quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than DRDGold quarterly revenues of --. Gold Fields's net income of -- is lower than DRDGold's net income of --. Notably, Gold Fields's price-to-earnings ratio is 16.09x while DRDGold's PE ratio is 14.25x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Gold Fields is 3.82x versus 3.45x for DRDGold. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Harmony Gold Mining has a net margin of -- compared to Gold Fields's net margin of --. Gold Fields's return on equity of 25.25% beat Harmony Gold Mining's return on equity of 25.77%.

Gold Fields has a consensus price target of $23.00, signalling upside risk potential of 3.6%. On the other hand Harmony Gold Mining has an analysts' consensus of $15.81 which suggests that it could fall by -1.39%. Given that Gold Fields has higher upside potential than Harmony Gold Mining, analysts believe Gold Fields is more attractive than Harmony Gold Mining.

Gold Fields has a beta of 0.918, which suggesting that the stock is 8.163% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Harmony Gold Mining has a beta of 1.421, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 42.132%.

Gold Fields has a quarterly dividend of $0.38 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.45%. Harmony Gold Mining offers a yield of 1.1% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.12 per share. Gold Fields pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Harmony Gold Mining pays out 16.74% of its earnings as a dividend. Harmony Gold Mining's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Gold Fields quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Harmony Gold Mining quarterly revenues of --. Gold Fields's net income of -- is lower than Harmony Gold Mining's net income of --. Notably, Gold Fields's price-to-earnings ratio is 16.09x while Harmony Gold Mining's PE ratio is 17.38x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Gold Fields is 3.82x versus 2.75x for Harmony Gold Mining. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Sibanye Stillwater has a net margin of -- compared to Gold Fields's net margin of --. Gold Fields's return on equity of 25.25% beat Sibanye Stillwater's return on equity of -15.35%.

Gold Fields has a consensus price target of $23.00, signalling upside risk potential of 3.6%. On the other hand Sibanye Stillwater has an analysts' consensus of $5.05 which suggests that it could grow by 0.61%. Given that Gold Fields has higher upside potential than Sibanye Stillwater, analysts believe Gold Fields is more attractive than Sibanye Stillwater.

Gold Fields has a beta of 0.918, which suggesting that the stock is 8.163% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Sibanye Stillwater has a beta of 1.076, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 7.576%.

Gold Fields has a quarterly dividend of $0.38 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.45%. Sibanye Stillwater offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.11 per share. Gold Fields pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Sibanye Stillwater pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Gold Fields quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Sibanye Stillwater quarterly revenues of --. Gold Fields's net income of -- is lower than Sibanye Stillwater's net income of --. Notably, Gold Fields's price-to-earnings ratio is 16.09x while Sibanye Stillwater's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Gold Fields is 3.82x versus 0.58x for Sibanye Stillwater. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Sasol has a net margin of -- compared to Gold Fields's net margin of --. Gold Fields's return on equity of 25.25% beat Sasol's return on equity of --.

Gold Fields has a consensus price target of $23.00, signalling upside risk potential of 3.6%. On the other hand Sasol has an analysts' consensus of $4.59 which suggests that it could grow by 25.88%. Given that Sasol has higher upside potential than Gold Fields, analysts believe Sasol is more attractive than Gold Fields.

Gold Fields has a beta of 0.918, which suggesting that the stock is 8.163% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Sasol has a beta of 1.715, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 71.544%.

Gold Fields has a quarterly dividend of $0.38 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.45%. Sasol offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.11 per share. Gold Fields pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Sasol pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Gold Fields quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Sasol quarterly revenues of --. Gold Fields's net income of -- is lower than Sasol's net income of --. Notably, Gold Fields's price-to-earnings ratio is 16.09x while Sasol's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Gold Fields is 3.82x versus 0.16x for Sasol. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.