Hi Richard,
I'll focus my response on some key areas:
Geo-political Risk:
I believe Kinross has more geo-politiacl risk as 44% of producing assets are located in West Africa and Russia. For its part, 100% of Kirkland Lake's assets are either in Canada or Australia which are known to be some of the safest mining jurisdictions in the world. Kinross does have more assets, which means KL is more susceptible if one of its mines goes down.
Debt profile:
Kirkland Lake has the stronger balance sheet and is better capitalized as it has no debt and a cash balance of $848.5M. Kinross has $1.9B in debt and a cash balance of $933M. Still in a good position, but KL's balance sheet is pristine.
Cost profile:
KL also has the better cost profile. Through the first nine months of the year, KL's AISC's averaged about $804/oz and Kinross averaged $978/oz.
Returning cash to shareholders:
Both companies have a yield that is equivalent, but KL has a four year dividend growth streak while Kinross just re-instated theirs this past September. KL has also returned $526M to shareholders in terms of share repurchases whereas from what I can tell, Kinross has not repurchased any this year.
Growth:
Looking forward, Kinross is looking to growth production from 2.4 to 2.9M ounces by 2023 (~7% annual growth). Of note, production is expected to be flat in 2021 and inline with 2020 production of 2.4Moz . KL hasn't released long-term production outlook although analysts earnings and revenue estimates for both companies are about equal.
Valuation:
Both companies look cheap and are each trading at around 9 times forward earnings and both are trading at a discount to historical averages.
Overall, I'd say both are comparable. However, Kirkland Lake has a much better cost and debt profile and looks to be better positioned to withstand a sudden drop in gold prices.
Mat