Gold Mining AISC Benchmarks 2026: Cost Rankings by Quartile

Quartile Position Is the First Screening Cut

The global gold mining cost curve shifts every year with input costs, currency movements, and production mix changes. Where a producer sits on that curve, and whether it is moving up or down, separates operators that can fund growth from ones living quarter to quarter.

This page tracks current AISC benchmarks by quartile, region, and specific producers. Use it as a reference when screening gold equities or stress-testing DCF assumptions.

2025-2026 Cost Curve by Quartile

Based on major producer earnings and WGC/Metals Focus reporting, the production-weighted median reached approximately $1,709/oz by Q4 2025. Higher sustaining capital, labour shortages, and royalty payments linked to elevated gold prices all contributed.

Quartile	AISC Range ($/oz)	Typical Profile
Q1 (lowest 25%)	Below ~$1,413	Large open-pit mines in Tier-1 jurisdictions. High-grade ore, modern equipment, established infrastructure.
Q2	$1,413-1,709	Mid-tier operations. Mix of open-pit and underground. Solid operators in stable jurisdictions.
Q3	$1,709-1,982	Older mines, remote locations, or underground operations in higher-cost regions. Marginal at lower gold prices.
Q4 (highest 25%)	Above $1,982	High-cost, ageing, or distressed operations. First to cut production or close in downturns.

Q1 producers generate the widest margins and survive commodity downturns intact. Q4 producers need gold above ~$1,982/oz just to sustain current operations, and their AISC tends to rise further as they defer maintenance and deplete higher-grade zones first.

Selected Producer AISC (FY2025 Actuals)

These come from the FY2025 results releases, with each company’s own 2025 guidance beside them. All three finished above the middle of their range and two finished above the top of it, which is the more useful lesson: guidance is a plan, and gold mining cost guidance gets missed on the high side more often than the low.

Producer	FY2025 Actual ($/oz)	2025 Guidance ($/oz)	Notes
Agnico Eagle	$1,339	$1,250-1,300	First-quartile, but finished above its own range. Canada, Australia, Finland, and one Mexican mine.
Barrick Mining	$1,637	$1,460-1,560	Missed by a wide margin. North America is its largest region and its dearest.
Newmont	$1,358 by-product, $1,609 co-product	~$1,630	The two bases moved in opposite directions: by-product fell on copper and silver credits, co-product rose.

The spread between Agnico and Barrick is roughly $300/oz on FY2025 actuals, wide for two top-five producers. Agnico’s lower AISC reflects higher-grade Canadian assets (Detour Lake, Canadian Malartic) and tighter cost discipline. Barrick’s higher figure reflects a broader portfolio and, on the filed segment costs, a North American book that is dearer than its African one.

AISC by Region

Regional cost differences reflect geology, labour markets, power costs, and logistics:

North America (Canada, USA)

• Position on the curve: mostly first and second quartile, below the median
• Advantages: established infrastructure, deep labour pool, stable permitting
• Pressure points: labour cost inflation (particularly skilled trades in Ontario and Quebec), rising energy costs in remote northern sites

Australia

• Position on the curve: first quartile at the large open pits, second quartile elsewhere
• Advantages: mature mining sector, well-maintained equipment fleets, reliable power grid
• Pressure points: tight labour market, high wages, currency impact (AUD-denominated costs reported in USD)

West Africa (Ghana, Mali, Burkina Faso, Guinea)

• Position on the curve: around and above the median, third quartile for most operations
• Advantages: some high-grade deposits, lower local labour costs
• Pressure points: diesel-dependent power generation, security costs, supply chain logistics, political instability in Sahel region

Latin America (Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Argentina)

• Position on the curve: spans it, from first-quartile Chilean and Peruvian operations to fourth-quartile marginal mines
• Advantages: favourable geology in several belts, improving infrastructure
• Pressure points: community relations, water access in arid regions, currency volatility, regulatory uncertainty in some jurisdictions

Russia and Central Asia report first-quartile costs on paper, helped by lower labour costs and large deposits. Sanctions on Russian operators, limited capital access, currency risk, and patchy reporting transparency make direct comparison with the regions above difficult.

Curve position shifts with exchange rates. A weakening local currency against USD reduces reported AISC because mine-site costs are paid in local currency while gold is sold in dollars. Australian and Canadian producers benefit from this when AUD and CAD weaken, and suffer when those currencies strengthen.

How AISC Has Moved Over Time

Period	Industry Median AISC ($/oz)	Key Drivers
2018-2019	$950-1,050	Stable input costs, disciplined capital. Low gold price era hangover.
2020-2021	$1,000-1,100	COVID disruptions offset by currency tailwinds. Modest cost growth.
2022-2023	$1,250-1,400	Labour inflation, energy price spikes, supply chain costs.
2024-2025	~$1,709 (median)	Continued inflation, higher royalties tied to rising gold prices, increased sustaining capex as mines mature.

The 2022-2025 period saw the sharpest AISC inflation in a decade. Gold prices rose faster than costs, so margins still expanded, but the cost base is now structurally higher than pre-2020 levels.

Using Benchmarks for Screening

For screening, start with margin safety: subtract AISC from the gold price. At $3,500/oz even third-quartile producers generate strong margins, so the screen tells you little.

Stress the downside instead. If gold halves to $1,750/oz, a first-quartile producer at ~$1,413/oz still covers its all-in sustaining cost with about $340/oz to spare, while a fourth-quartile producer at ~$1,982/oz is roughly $230/oz underwater.

Sort the peer group by AISC to find cost leaders and laggards. Persistent first-quartile positioning over 3-5 years signals structural advantages (grade, scale, jurisdiction) rather than one-off benefits. A company that jumps between quartiles year to year may be managing costs through capex deferrals rather than genuine efficiency.

AISC also feeds directly into DCF and NAV models. Assuming $1,300/oz AISC for a producer that actually runs at $1,600/oz inflates the model by $300/oz across every year of mine life. Use reported AISC as the starting point, then apply modest inflation (2-3% annual creep is typical for mature operations) across the forecast period.

Things That Should Make You Suspicious

If AISC drops 10% but total capital spending increases, the company is probably reclassifying sustaining capex as growth capex. Pull the capex breakdown from the MD&A and compare year-over-year.

A mid-tier African producer reporting $1,000/oz while neighbours with similar geology report $1,400/oz deserves scrutiny. Either it has genuinely superior ore, or its sustaining capital is too low and production will eventually decline. Look at reserve replacement and whether production has been flat or shrinking.

Swings of more than 15% annually in AISC (not explained by gold price movements or specific events) tend to indicate lumpy sustaining capex or inconsistent cost categorisation. Smoothing over a 3-year average gives a more reliable picture.

Polymetallic producers subtract by-product revenue from AISC, which can move the reported number by hundreds of dollars per ounce. A copper by-product credit at $6/lb looks very different at $3.50/lb. See AISC vs cash cost for the detail on how these credits work.

Feeding Benchmarks into a Valuation

Cost curve position feeds straight into DCF or NAV models: reported AISC is the starting cost assumption, then 2-3% annual inflation for mature operations is typical. Before you lock the model, cross-check against the quartile bands above. A producer claiming $1,100/oz AISC in a region where peers run $1,400-1,500/oz either has a structural edge worth understanding or a number that needs digging into. The Mining Sector Primer situates cost work in the broader mining investment framework.