vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Caledonia Mining Corp Plc (CMCL) and Vale S.A. (VALE), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Vale S.A. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($8.8B vs $46.9M, roughly 187.8× Caledonia Mining Corp Plc). Vale S.A. runs the higher net margin — 7.0% vs 24.3%, a 17.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Caledonia Mining Corp Plc posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (13.8% vs -11.3%).
Hochschild Mining plc is a leading British-based silver and gold mining business operating in North, Central, and South America. It is headquartered in Lima, Peru, with a corporate office in London, is listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 250 Index. The main shareholder is the Peruvian businessman Eduardo Hochschild.
Vale, formerly Companhia Vale do Rio Doce, is a Brazilian multinational corporation engaged in metals and mining and one of the largest logistics operators in Brazil. Vale is the largest producer of iron ore and nickel in the world. It also produces manganese, ferroalloys, copper, bauxite, potash, kaolin, and cobalt; as of 2014 the company operated nine hydroelectricity plants, and a large network of railroads, ships, and ports used to transport its products.
CMCL vs VALE — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2024 vs Q2 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $46.9M | $8.8B |
| Net Profit | $3.3M | $2.1B |
| Gross Margin | 41.2% | 30.9% |
| Operating Margin | 18.6% | 22.8% |
| Net Margin | 7.0% | 24.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 13.8% | -11.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | -33.3% | -22.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.13 | $0.50 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q2 25 | — | $8.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $46.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $50.1M | $9.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $38.5M | — | ||
| Q4 23 | $38.7M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $41.2M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $37.0M | $9.7B | ||
| Q1 23 | $29.4M | — |
| Q2 25 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.2M | $2.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.1M | — | ||
| Q4 23 | $-2.6M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $4.9M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-2.5M | $928.0M | ||
| Q1 23 | $-4.6M | — |
| Q2 25 | — | 30.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 41.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 45.8% | 36.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 35.9% | — | ||
| Q4 23 | 27.3% | — | ||
| Q3 23 | 34.3% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 29.5% | 38.6% | ||
| Q1 23 | 19.9% | — |
| Q2 25 | — | 22.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 18.6% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 32.2% | 39.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 13.8% | — | ||
| Q4 23 | 6.0% | — | ||
| Q3 23 | 22.4% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 2.5% | 29.7% | ||
| Q1 23 | -5.1% | — |
| Q2 25 | — | 24.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 20.3% | 27.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.4% | — | ||
| Q4 23 | -6.7% | — | ||
| Q3 23 | 12.0% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | -6.8% | 9.6% | ||
| Q1 23 | -15.8% | — |
| Q2 25 | — | $0.50 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.13 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.42 | $0.65 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.07 | — | ||
| Q4 23 | $-0.19 | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $0.21 | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-0.14 | $0.20 | ||
| Q1 23 | $-0.32 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $7.2M | $5.5B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $231.0M | $40.5B |
| Total Assets | $339.7M | $90.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q2 25 | — | $5.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $15.4M | $6.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.8M | — | ||
| Q4 23 | $6.7M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $10.8M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $12.8M | $5.0B | ||
| Q1 23 | $19.0M | — |
| Q2 25 | — | $40.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $231.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $231.1M | $38.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $220.3M | — | ||
| Q4 23 | $224.2M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $226.6M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $224.3M | $40.3B | ||
| Q1 23 | $223.4M | — |
| Q2 25 | — | $90.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $339.7M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $338.5M | $86.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $321.8M | — | ||
| Q4 23 | $328.3M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $320.3M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $313.9M | $91.5B | ||
| Q1 23 | $320.0M | — |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $4.6M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.40× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $19.1M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $14.5M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-2.2M | — | ||
| Q1 23 | — | — |
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.40× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.87× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | — | ||
| Q3 23 | 2.94× | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — | ||
| Q1 23 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
