Short answer
Total cash cost captures only mine-site operating costs, royalties, and production taxes per ounce of gold sold. All-in sustaining cost (AISC) adds sustaining capital, sustaining exploration, reclamation accretion, and corporate G&A on top — so AISC is always higher. AISC is the better measure of true breakeven economics; cash cost flatters the industry by leaving out everything needed to keep producing.
Why two numbers exist
Before 2013, gold producers reported "cash cost" — a narrow measure of direct mine-site operating costs. The number was easy to beat because it excluded the capital required to keep producing: sustaining capex, royalties on some calculations, corporate overhead, reclamation.
The World Gold Council standardised AISC in 2013 so investors could compare producers on the all-in price they actually need to receive per ounce. Cash cost did not disappear — most producers still report both — but AISC became the headline number.
What each metric includes
Total cash cost includes mining, processing, refining, on-site administration, royalties, and production taxes — divided by ounces sold. Some producers also report "co-product" or "by-product" cash costs depending on how they treat silver or copper credits.
AISC starts with total cash cost and adds: sustaining capital expenditure (capex needed to maintain current production), sustaining exploration (drilling to extend the existing mine life), reclamation and remediation accretion, and corporate general and administrative expenses. Growth capex, project-stage exploration, financing costs, and income taxes are excluded.
Which number to trust
AISC is the better single measure of whether a mine can sustain itself at the current gold price. The gap between AISC and the realised gold price is the per-ounce margin available for dividends, growth capex, exploration, or debt repayment.
Cash cost is still useful for one thing: trend analysis at a single mine. A widening gap between cash cost and AISC at a mature operation usually flags rising sustaining capex — a sign the orebody is getting harder to mine.
Worked example: Majestic Gold FY2025
Majestic Gold Corp. (TSXV: MJS) reported total cash costs of US$1,195 per ounce and AISC of US$1,584 per ounce in fiscal year 2025. The US$389 per ounce difference is sustaining capital, sustaining exploration, reclamation accretion, and corporate G&A — the costs of keeping the Songjiagou Gold Mine producing at current capacity.
Against a realised gold price comfortably above AISC, the mine generated US$45.5 million of adjusted EBITDA and US$30.9 million of operating cash flow for the year.
Related questions
Why is AISC always higher than cash cost?
AISC starts from total cash cost and adds sustaining capital, sustaining exploration, reclamation accretion, and corporate G&A. By construction, AISC is mathematically equal to or greater than cash cost.
Does AISC include taxes?
AISC includes royalties and production taxes (which are part of total cash cost) but excludes corporate income tax. Income tax is reported separately on the income statement.
Why don't all producers report AISC the same way?
The World Gold Council guidance is principles-based, not prescriptive. Producers make judgement calls on what counts as sustaining vs. growth capex, and on how to allocate corporate G&A. Read the reconciliation footnotes in each company's MD&A to compare like for like.