MUX Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Austin Gold has a net margin of -17.57% compared to McEwen's net margin of --. McEwen's return on equity of -6.05% beat Austin Gold's return on equity of --.

McEwen has a consensus price target of $15.06, signalling upside risk potential of 36.68%. On the other hand Austin Gold has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could grow by 124.03%. Given that Austin Gold has higher upside potential than McEwen, analysts believe Austin Gold is more attractive than McEwen.

McEwen has a beta of 0.985, which suggesting that the stock is 1.544% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Austin Gold has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

McEwen has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Austin Gold offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. McEwen pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Austin Gold pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

McEwen quarterly revenues are $35.7M, which are larger than Austin Gold quarterly revenues of --. McEwen's net income of -$6.3M is lower than Austin Gold's net income of -$499.5K. Notably, McEwen's price-to-earnings ratio is 3.42x while Austin Gold'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 McEwen is 3.39x versus -- for Austin Gold. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Gold Royalty has a net margin of -17.57% compared to McEwen's net margin of -39.77%. McEwen's return on equity of -6.05% beat Gold Royalty's return on equity of -0.59%.

McEwen has a consensus price target of $15.06, signalling upside risk potential of 36.68%. On the other hand Gold Royalty has an analysts' consensus of $3.33 which suggests that it could grow by 36.61%. Given that McEwen has higher upside potential than Gold Royalty, analysts believe McEwen is more attractive than Gold Royalty.

McEwen has a beta of 0.985, which suggesting that the stock is 1.544% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Gold Royalty has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

McEwen has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Gold Royalty offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.01 per share. McEwen pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Gold Royalty pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

McEwen quarterly revenues are $35.7M, which are larger than Gold Royalty quarterly revenues of $3.1M. McEwen's net income of -$6.3M is lower than Gold Royalty's net income of -$1.2M. Notably, McEwen's price-to-earnings ratio is 3.42x while Gold Royalty'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 McEwen is 3.39x versus 39.12x for Gold Royalty. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Rise Gold has a net margin of -17.57% compared to McEwen's net margin of --. McEwen's return on equity of -6.05% beat Rise Gold's return on equity of --.

McEwen has a consensus price target of $15.06, signalling upside risk potential of 36.68%. On the other hand Rise Gold has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that McEwen has higher upside potential than Rise Gold, analysts believe McEwen is more attractive than Rise Gold.

McEwen has a beta of 0.985, which suggesting that the stock is 1.544% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Rise Gold has a beta of -1.278, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 227.842%.

McEwen has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Rise Gold offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. McEwen pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Rise Gold pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

McEwen quarterly revenues are $35.7M, which are larger than Rise Gold quarterly revenues of --. McEwen's net income of -$6.3M is lower than Rise Gold's net income of -$756K. Notably, McEwen's price-to-earnings ratio is 3.42x while Rise Gold'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 McEwen is 3.39x versus -- for Rise Gold. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Seabridge Gold has a net margin of -17.57% compared to McEwen's net margin of --. McEwen's return on equity of -6.05% beat Seabridge Gold's return on equity of --.

McEwen has a consensus price target of $15.06, signalling upside risk potential of 36.68%. On the other hand Seabridge Gold has an analysts' consensus of $41.58 which suggests that it could grow by 163.86%. Given that Seabridge Gold has higher upside potential than McEwen, analysts believe Seabridge Gold is more attractive than McEwen.

McEwen has a beta of 0.985, which suggesting that the stock is 1.544% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Seabridge Gold has a beta of 0.667, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 33.275%.

McEwen has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Seabridge Gold offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. McEwen pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Seabridge Gold pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

McEwen quarterly revenues are $35.7M, which are larger than Seabridge Gold quarterly revenues of --. McEwen's net income of -$6.3M is lower than Seabridge Gold's net income of $7.3M. Notably, McEwen's price-to-earnings ratio is 3.42x while Seabridge Gold's PE ratio is 250.29x. 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 McEwen is 3.39x versus -- for Seabridge Gold. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.