Ero Copper Corp.
Ero Copper Corp. ERO.TO Peers
See (ERO.TO) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Copper Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ERO.TO | CA$20.41 | -4.09% | 2.1B | 81.64 | CA$0.25 | N/A |
| FM.TO | CA$21.03 | +0.33% | 17.4B | 84.12 | CA$0.25 | N/A |
| LUN.TO | CA$13.91 | -0.71% | 11.9B | 86.94 | CA$0.16 | +2.32% |
| CS.TO | CA$7.57 | -2.57% | 5.8B | 50.47 | CA$0.15 | N/A |
| HBM.TO | CA$13.14 | +0.46% | 5.2B | 24.79 | CA$0.53 | +0.15% |
| IE.TO | CA$10.70 | -1.47% | 1.4B | -9.47 | -CA$1.13 | N/A |
| TKO.TO | CA$4.11 | +3.53% | 1.3B | -19.57 | -CA$0.21 | N/A |
| III.TO | CA$5.39 | -1.82% | 878.6M | 5.61 | CA$0.96 | N/A |
| AYM.TO | CA$5.78 | +8.85% | 835.8M | 10.70 | CA$0.54 | N/A |
| MARI.TO | CA$5.60 | -4.27% | 566.5M | -31.11 | -CA$0.18 | N/A |
Stock Comparison
ERO.TO vs FM.TO Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, FM.TO has a market cap of 17.4B. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while FM.TO trades at CA$21.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas FM.TO's P/E ratio is 84.12. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to FM.TO's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, ERO.TO is less volatile compared to FM.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ERO.TO.
ERO.TO vs LUN.TO Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, LUN.TO has a market cap of 11.9B. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while LUN.TO trades at CA$13.91.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas LUN.TO's P/E ratio is 86.94. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to LUN.TO's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, ERO.TO is more volatile compared to LUN.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ERO.TO.
ERO.TO vs CS.TO Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, CS.TO has a market cap of 5.8B. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while CS.TO trades at CA$7.57.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas CS.TO's P/E ratio is 50.47. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CS.TO's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, ERO.TO is less volatile compared to CS.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ERO.TO.
ERO.TO vs HBM.TO Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, HBM.TO has a market cap of 5.2B. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while HBM.TO trades at CA$13.14.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas HBM.TO's P/E ratio is 24.79. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to HBM.TO's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, ERO.TO is more volatile compared to HBM.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ERO.TO.
ERO.TO vs IE.TO Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, IE.TO has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while IE.TO trades at CA$10.70.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas IE.TO's P/E ratio is -9.47. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to IE.TO's ROE of -0.37%. Regarding short-term risk, ERO.TO is more volatile compared to IE.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ERO.TO.
ERO.TO vs TKO.TO Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, TKO.TO has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while TKO.TO trades at CA$4.11.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas TKO.TO's P/E ratio is -19.57. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to TKO.TO's ROE of -0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, ERO.TO is less volatile compared to TKO.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ERO.TO.
ERO.TO vs III.TO Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, III.TO has a market cap of 878.6M. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while III.TO trades at CA$5.39.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas III.TO's P/E ratio is 5.61. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to III.TO's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, ERO.TO is more volatile compared to III.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ERO.TO.
ERO.TO vs AYM.TO Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, AYM.TO has a market cap of 835.8M. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while AYM.TO trades at CA$5.78.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas AYM.TO's P/E ratio is 10.70. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to AYM.TO's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, ERO.TO is more volatile compared to AYM.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ERO.TO.
ERO.TO vs MARI.TO Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, MARI.TO has a market cap of 566.5M. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while MARI.TO trades at CA$5.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas MARI.TO's P/E ratio is -31.11. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to MARI.TO's ROE of -0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, ERO.TO is less volatile compared to MARI.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ERO.TO.
ERO.TO vs CMMC.TO Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, CMMC.TO has a market cap of 533.8M. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while CMMC.TO trades at CA$2.49.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas CMMC.TO's P/E ratio is -9.58. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CMMC.TO's ROE of -0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, ERO.TO is less volatile compared to CMMC.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ERO.TO.
ERO.TO vs ASCU.TO Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, ASCU.TO has a market cap of 316.6M. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while ASCU.TO trades at CA$2.13.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas ASCU.TO's P/E ratio is -26.62. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to ASCU.TO's ROE of -0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, ERO.TO is less volatile compared to ASCU.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ERO.TO.
ERO.TO vs ARG.TO Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, ARG.TO has a market cap of 308.5M. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while ARG.TO trades at CA$1.88.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas ARG.TO's P/E ratio is 12.53. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to ARG.TO's ROE of +0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, ERO.TO is less volatile compared to ARG.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ERO.TO.
ERO.TO vs FDY.TO Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, FDY.TO has a market cap of 164.4M. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while FDY.TO trades at CA$0.80.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas FDY.TO's P/E ratio is -6.15. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to FDY.TO's ROE of -0.58%. Regarding short-term risk, ERO.TO is more volatile compared to FDY.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ERO.TO.
ERO.TO vs NCU.TO Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, NCU.TO has a market cap of 42.9M. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while NCU.TO trades at CA$0.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas NCU.TO's P/E ratio is -1.00. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to NCU.TO's ROE of -0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, ERO.TO is less volatile compared to NCU.TO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ERO.TO.
ERO.TO vs DNT.TO Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, DNT.TO has a market cap of 38.8M. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while DNT.TO trades at CA$0.13.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas DNT.TO's P/E ratio is -13.00. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to DNT.TO's ROE of -0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, ERO.TO is more volatile compared to DNT.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ERO.TO.
ERO.TO vs RCLF.CN Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, RCLF.CN has a market cap of 17.5M. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while RCLF.CN trades at CA$0.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas RCLF.CN's P/E ratio is -4.50. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to RCLF.CN's ROE of -2.27%. Regarding short-term risk, Volatility data is not available for a full comparison. ERO.TO has daily volatility of 3.25 and RCLF.CN has daily volatility of N/A.
ERO.TO vs CCI.CN Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, CCI.CN has a market cap of 14.5M. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while CCI.CN trades at CA$0.15.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas CCI.CN's P/E ratio is -7.25. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to CCI.CN's ROE of -0.43%. Regarding short-term risk, ERO.TO is less volatile compared to CCI.CN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ERO.TO.
ERO.TO vs JUBA.CN Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, JUBA.CN has a market cap of 681K. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while JUBA.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas JUBA.CN's P/E ratio is -0.25. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to JUBA.CN's ROE of -0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, ERO.TO is more volatile compared to JUBA.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ERO.TO.
ERO.TO vs AFX.CN Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, AFX.CN has a market cap of 352.3K. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while AFX.CN trades at CA$0.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas AFX.CN's P/E ratio is -0.50. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to AFX.CN's ROE of -1.97%. Regarding short-term risk, ERO.TO is more volatile compared to AFX.CN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ERO.TO.
ERO.TO vs TRQ.TO Comparison
ERO.TO plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, ERO.TO stands at 2.1B. In comparison, TRQ.TO has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, ERO.TO is priced at CA$20.41, while TRQ.TO trades at CA$42.99.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
ERO.TO currently has a P/E ratio of 81.64, whereas TRQ.TO's P/E ratio is 11.91. In terms of profitability, ERO.TO's ROE is +0.03%, compared to TRQ.TO's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, ERO.TO is more volatile compared to TRQ.TO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for ERO.TO.