Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Gold Fields Limited
How Gold Fields Limited stacks up
GFI · against 58 other Basic Materials companies of similar size
Growth
98/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #5 of 59 · scores higher than 91% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score12 peers with a growth score of 90–100, including GFI · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 98?
Weighted metrics compared with all Basic Materials companies.Mainly thanks to its revenue growth, 3-year revenue growth and earnings per share growth, which are stronger than most Basic Materials peers.
- faster growth in earnings per share: stronger than 91% of peers. Earnings per share growth: 186.5% vs peer median 9.4%
- faster revenue growth over three years: stronger than 93% of peers. 3-year revenue growth: 26.9% vs peer median -0.0%
- faster revenue growth over the last year: stronger than 96% of peers. Revenue growth: 68.2% vs peer median 3.4%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = GFI, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | GFI | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 59 reported | 68.2% | 9.2% | 91% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 47 reported | 186.5% | 38.7% | 85% | 33% | |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 59 reported | 26.9% | 2.2% | 90% | 33% |
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around GFI| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 41.2B USD | 99 | 88 | |
| 1 | 15.9B USD | 99 | 75 | |
| 1 | 47.9B EUR (≈$52.7B) | 99 | 61 | |
| 1 | 53.3B USD | 99 | 79 | |
| 5 | 486.3B MXN (≈$26.3B) | 98 | 91 | |
| 5 | 30.8B USD | 98 | 83 | |
| 7 | 23.6B USD | 95 | 81 | |
| 8 | 19.6B USD | 94 | 76 | |
| 9 | 43.6B USD | 93 | 81 | |
| 9 | 3.22T INR (≈$38.7B) | 93 | 63 |
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