AUMN Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

DynaResource has a net margin of -432.33% compared to Golden Minerals's net margin of 4.39%. Golden Minerals's return on equity of -193.83% beat DynaResource's return on equity of -45.45%.

Golden Minerals has a consensus price target of --, signalling upside risk potential of 733.33%. On the other hand DynaResource has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Golden Minerals has higher upside potential than DynaResource, analysts believe Golden Minerals is more attractive than DynaResource.

Golden Minerals has a beta of -0.678, which suggesting that the stock is 167.814% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison DynaResource has a beta of 0.518, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 48.211%.

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

Golden Minerals quarterly revenues are $300K, which are smaller than DynaResource quarterly revenues of $13.7M. Golden Minerals's net income of -$1.2M is lower than DynaResource's net income of $601.4K. Notably, Golden Minerals's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while DynaResource'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 Golden Minerals is 0.22x versus 0.73x for DynaResource. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Friedman Industries has a net margin of -432.33% compared to Golden Minerals's net margin of 4.14%. Golden Minerals's return on equity of -193.83% beat Friedman Industries's return on equity of 4.71%.

Golden Minerals has a consensus price target of --, signalling upside risk potential of 733.33%. On the other hand Friedman Industries has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Golden Minerals has higher upside potential than Friedman Industries, analysts believe Golden Minerals is more attractive than Friedman Industries.

Golden Minerals has a beta of -0.678, which suggesting that the stock is 167.814% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Friedman Industries has a beta of 1.509, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 50.9%.

Golden Minerals has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Friedman Industries offers a yield of 0.96% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.04 per share. Golden Minerals pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Friedman Industries pays out 18.32% of its earnings as a dividend. Friedman Industries's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Golden Minerals quarterly revenues are $300K, which are smaller than Friedman Industries quarterly revenues of $129.2M. Golden Minerals's net income of -$1.2M is lower than Friedman Industries's net income of $5.3M. Notably, Golden Minerals's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Friedman Industries's PE ratio is 19.30x. 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 Golden Minerals is 0.22x versus 0.26x for Friedman Industries. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Paramount Gold Nevada has a net margin of -432.33% compared to Golden Minerals's net margin of --. Golden Minerals's return on equity of -193.83% beat Paramount Gold Nevada's return on equity of --.

Golden Minerals has a consensus price target of --, signalling upside risk potential of 733.33%. On the other hand Paramount Gold Nevada has an analysts' consensus of $1.40 which suggests that it could grow by 125.37%. Given that Golden Minerals has higher upside potential than Paramount Gold Nevada, analysts believe Golden Minerals is more attractive than Paramount Gold Nevada.

Golden Minerals has a beta of -0.678, which suggesting that the stock is 167.814% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Paramount Gold Nevada has a beta of 1.120, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 11.978%.

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

Golden Minerals quarterly revenues are $300K, which are larger than Paramount Gold Nevada quarterly revenues of --. Golden Minerals's net income of -$1.2M is higher than Paramount Gold Nevada's net income of -$2.6M. Notably, Golden Minerals's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Paramount Gold Nevada'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 Golden Minerals is 0.22x versus -- for Paramount Gold Nevada. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Solitario Resources has a net margin of -432.33% compared to Golden Minerals's net margin of --. Golden Minerals's return on equity of -193.83% beat Solitario Resources's return on equity of --.

Golden Minerals has a consensus price target of --, signalling upside risk potential of 733.33%. On the other hand Solitario Resources has an analysts' consensus of $1.50 which suggests that it could grow by 125.23%. Given that Golden Minerals has higher upside potential than Solitario Resources, analysts believe Golden Minerals is more attractive than Solitario Resources.

Golden Minerals has a beta of -0.678, which suggesting that the stock is 167.814% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Solitario Resources has a beta of 0.470, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 52.985%.

Golden Minerals has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Solitario Resources offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Golden Minerals pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Solitario Resources pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Golden Minerals quarterly revenues are $300K, which are larger than Solitario Resources quarterly revenues of --. Golden Minerals's net income of -$1.2M is lower than Solitario Resources's net income of -$511K. Notably, Golden Minerals's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Solitario Resources'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 Golden Minerals is 0.22x versus -- for Solitario Resources. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.