Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Alamos Gold Inc.
How Alamos Gold Inc. stacks up
AGI · against 1,320 other Basic Materials companies
Valuation
68/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #417 of 1,321 · scores higher than 68% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score132 peers with a valuation score of 60–69, including AGI · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 68?
Weighted metrics compared with all Basic Materials companies.Mainly thanks to its earnings yield and EBITDA yield, which are stronger than most Basic Materials peers.
- Free cash flow yield is close to the peer norm. Free cash flow yield: 2.4% vs peer median 2.6%
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 72% of peers. EBITDA yield: 13.0% vs peer median 8.5%
- higher earnings for the price paid: stronger than 84% of peers. Earnings yield: 7.4% vs peer median 3.6%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = AGI, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | AGI | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 1,281 reported | 9.3% | 3.8% | 84% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 1,352 reported | 13.0% | 8.6% | 72% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 409 reported | 1.6% | 2.6% | 45% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 1,275 reported | 43.7% | 61.0% | 34% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around AGI| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 577.1B KRW (≈$416M) | 100 | 66 | |
| 1 | 219M MYR (≈$48M) | 100 | 86 | |
| 1 | 63M MYR (≈$14M) | 100 | 68 | |
| 1 | 1.39T ARS (≈$1.4B) | 100 | 53 | |
| 1 | 224.2B CLP (≈$247M) | 100 | 47 | |
| 417 | 4.9B CNY (≈$682M) | 68 | 32 | |
| 417 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score