Aura Minerals vs Ferroglobe
AUGO and GSM side by side, both in materials. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AUGO and GSM compare
Aura Minerals grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (55.1% versus −18.8% for Ferroglobe).
Aura Minerals scores higher on the StockData Score (6 against 3 for Ferroglobe), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | AUGO | GSM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Share price | $81.40 | $2.87 |
| Change, 1 year | 127% | −26.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 797% | −52.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.96 | 1.27 |
| Employees | 1,462 | 15 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 0 | 0 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 55.1% (better) | −18.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 3.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −825% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −858% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 58.0% | – |
| Operating margin | – | −10.0% |
| Net margin | – | −12.8% |
| FCF margin | – | −0.77% |
| Return on equity | – | −25.9% |
| Return on invested capital | – | −16.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.24 |
| Interest coverage | – | −6.4× |
| Current ratio | 0.97 | 1.66 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 3 |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 30.6% | 56.6% |
| Held by insiders | 52.3% | 36.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$153M | $61.9K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 14.0% | 4.6% |
Go deeper
- AUGO stock overview
- AUGO income statement
- AUGO valuation and score
- GSM stock overview
- GSM income statement
- GSM valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.