Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Rio Tinto Group
How Rio Tinto Group stacks up
RIO · against 182 other Basic Materials companies listed in US-listed
Growth
47/ 100
Below the middle of the pack.
Ranked #125 of 183 · scores higher than 32% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score9 peers with a growth score of 40–49, including RIO · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 47?
Weighted metrics compared with all Basic Materials companies.Its metrics sit close to the Basic Materials norm.
- slower growth in earnings per share: weaker than 70% of peers. Earnings per share growth: -13.7% vs peer median 9.4%
- 3-year revenue growth is close to the peer norm. 3-year revenue growth: 0.9% vs peer median -0.0%
- Revenue growth is close to the peer norm. Revenue growth: 6.3% vs peer median 3.3%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = RIO, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | RIO | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 187 reported | 6.3% | 9.9% | 40% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 102 reported | -13.7% | 17.1% | 27% | 33% | |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 180 reported | 0.9% | 1.5% | 48% | 33% |
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around RIO| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 15.0B USD | 100 | 82 | |
| 1 | 9.7B USD | 100 | 84 | |
| 3 | 44.8B USD | 99 | 88 | |
| 3 | 6.6B USD | 99 | 76 | |
| 3 | 16.8B USD | 99 | 74 | |
| 119 | 9.7B USD | 54 | 69 | |
| 119 | 752M USD | 54 | 80 | |
| 123 | Unavailable | 49 | 59 | |
| 123 | 1.0B USD | 49 | 44 | |
| 125 | 135.2B USD | 47 | 64 | |
| 126 | 5.8B USD | 45 | 53 | |
| 126 | 960M USD | 45 | 59 | |
| 128 | 680M USD | 44 | 60 | |
| 129 | 1.9B USD | 43 | 22 |
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