SBMSF Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Indiana Resources has a net margin of -- compared to Danakali's net margin of --. Danakali's return on equity of -- beat Indiana Resources's return on equity of --.

Danakali has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Indiana Resources has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Danakali has higher upside potential than Indiana Resources, analysts believe Danakali is more attractive than Indiana Resources.

Danakali has a beta of 1.465, which suggesting that the stock is 46.483% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Indiana Resources has a beta of 3.814, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 281.374%.

Danakali has a quarterly dividend of $0.01 per share corresponding to a yield of 241.66%. Indiana Resources offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.03 per share. Danakali pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Indiana Resources pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Danakali quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Indiana Resources quarterly revenues of --. Danakali's net income of -- is lower than Indiana Resources's net income of --. Notably, Danakali's price-to-earnings ratio is 47.38x while Indiana Resources's PE ratio is 0.65x. 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 Danakali is -- versus 0.10x for Indiana Resources. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

AIC Mines has a net margin of -- compared to Danakali's net margin of --. Danakali's return on equity of -- beat AIC Mines's return on equity of 6.71%.

Danakali has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand AIC Mines has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Danakali has higher upside potential than AIC Mines, analysts believe Danakali is more attractive than AIC Mines.

Danakali has a beta of 1.465, which suggesting that the stock is 46.483% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison AIC Mines has a beta of 0.531, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 46.901%.

Danakali has a quarterly dividend of $0.01 per share corresponding to a yield of 241.66%. AIC Mines offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Danakali pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. AIC Mines pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Danakali quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than AIC Mines quarterly revenues of --. Danakali's net income of -- is lower than AIC Mines's net income of --. Notably, Danakali's price-to-earnings ratio is 47.38x while AIC Mines's PE ratio is 9.20x. 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 Danakali is -- versus 0.67x for AIC Mines. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Nova Minerals has a net margin of -- compared to Danakali's net margin of --. Danakali's return on equity of -- beat Nova Minerals's return on equity of --.

Danakali has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Nova Minerals has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could grow by 127.27%. Given that Nova Minerals has higher upside potential than Danakali, analysts believe Nova Minerals is more attractive than Danakali.

Danakali has a beta of 1.465, which suggesting that the stock is 46.483% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Nova Minerals has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

Danakali has a quarterly dividend of $0.01 per share corresponding to a yield of 241.66%. Nova Minerals offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Danakali pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Nova Minerals pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Danakali quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Nova Minerals quarterly revenues of --. Danakali's net income of -- is lower than Nova Minerals's net income of --. Notably, Danakali's price-to-earnings ratio is 47.38x while Nova Minerals'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 Danakali is -- versus -- for Nova Minerals. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Sims has a net margin of -- compared to Danakali's net margin of --. Danakali's return on equity of -- beat Sims's return on equity of -4.33%.

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

Danakali has a beta of 1.465, which suggesting that the stock is 46.483% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Sims has a beta of 1.251, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 25.13%.

Danakali has a quarterly dividend of $0.01 per share corresponding to a yield of 241.66%. Sims offers a yield of 1.64% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.06 per share. Danakali pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Sims pays out -70.24% of its earnings as a dividend.

Danakali quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Sims quarterly revenues of --. Danakali's net income of -- is lower than Sims's net income of --. Notably, Danakali's price-to-earnings ratio is 47.38x while Sims's PE ratio is 36.02x. 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 Danakali is -- versus 0.35x for Sims. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.