
The shares that rocketed over the past decade - but which markets delivered most 'ten-baggers'?
Despite a slip-up at the end of last week, the FTSE 100 still closed at 9,067. Already, bulls will be setting their targets on the 10,000-point mark in the years to come.
The FTSE 100 has grown by more than 10 per cent this year so far, while the FTSE 250 is up almost 7 per cent.
The standout big name performer this year has been Rolls-Royce, with the engineer's shares up 78 per cent since the start of 2025 - and an astonishing 1,100 per cent over the past five years.
Yet for investors looking strike it rich on a true gold mine stock over the long term, the UK might not be the place to look.
Analysis from IG, shared exclusively with This is Money, suggests that investors hoping to find a 'ten-bagger' stock should be looking across the pond - where they are 22 times more likely to find a higher performer than in the UK.
A ten-bagger is a stock that multiplies its value tenfold over a ten-year period, delivering a 1,000 per cent or higher gain.
While Rolls-Royce has ten-bagged from its lows, just a single main market UK stock proved to be a ten-bagger over the decade-long period that IG looked at: Warhammer maker, Games Workshop.
The firm returned 3,109 per cent during the period, according to IG analysis covering the S&P 500, Europe's Stoxx 600 and the UK's FTSE 350 over the ten years from the end of June 2015 to the end of June 2025, based on share price gains alone.
The Nottingham-based firm, which only joined the ranks of the FTSE 100 in December last year, is something of an unlikely British success story.
In June 2015, Games Workshop shares were worth around 500 pence each, having languished under the £10 market since the 1990s, before booming in the past decade.
Games Workshop's impressive return places it as the ninth highest growing ten-bagger in the list.
> How Games Workshop transformed into a miniature wargames giant
Top 10 ten-bagger stocks, 2015-2025
Rank Company 10-year share price growth Geography
1 Nvidia Corp. 29,959% US
2 Advanced Micro Devices 5,524% US
3 Argenx SE 4,535% Europe
4 Rheinmetall AG 3,585% Europe
5 Evolution AB 3,167% Europe
6 Games Workshop Group PLC 3,109% Europe
7 Axon Enterprise Inc 2,237% US
8 Texas Pacific Land Corp 2,077% US
9 Fair Isaac Corp 1,913% US
10 Arista Networks 1,834% US
Source: IG, data is across the FTSE 350, S&P 500 and Stoxx 600
How the US became the home of ten-baggers
However, its growth still pales in comparison with US darling Nvidia, with the chipmaker and largest company in the world rising an eye-watering 29,959 per cent since 2015.
The S&P 500 had 23 ten-baggers in total, including Advanced Micro Devices, rising 5,254 per cent, and Axon Enterprise, which increased 2,237 per cent.
Other big US names like Tesla and Netflix also made it into the list.
Chris Beauchamp, chief market analyst at IG, said: 'Every investor dreams of finding the next Apple or Nvidia - stocks that transform portfolios with tenfold returns. But those headline-grabbing success stories are far more common in the US than in the UK.
'While American markets boast the world's biggest tech giants, the FTSE 100 is still dominated by more traditional names which don't always fire the imagination in the same way.'
Even mainland Europe far outweighs the UK, with 14 of the Stoxx 600 delivering tenfold returns over the decade.
Dutch biotech firm Argenx SE grew 4,535 per cent over the period, while German defence frim Rheinmetall AG has risen 3,585 per cent since 2015.
IG said Europe's ten-baggers are noticeably more diversified than the US' tech-heavy winners, although still mainly focused around tech and healthcare.
Of course, IG's analysis only includes 350 UK stocks, compared to 600 for Europe and 500 for the US.
Still, the UK's lag on high growth stocks comes amid continued concerns that London is no longer a competitive market, and fewer companies are choosing to bet on going public in the UK.
This year so far, some 70 companies have left the UK market, while over recent years big names have fled the UK, with the likes of chipmaker Arm and gambling firm Flutter betting on the US, while most recently UK fintech Wise has said it plans to move its listing to New York.
Beauchamp added: 'To change that, the UK needs to do more to attract and retain high-growth companies, particularly in tech and innovation.
'That means making London a more appealing place to list - and encouraging a shift in corporate culture, with more focus on long-term reinvestment and growth rather than just delivering dividends.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Finextra
6 minutes ago
- Finextra
SmartSearch adds LSEG's World-Check One to screening data sources
SmartSearch, the UK's leading provider of digital compliance and anti-money laundering (AML) solutions, today announces the integration of LSEG's (London Stock Exchange Group) World-Check One solution into its watchlist screening offering. 0 The addition of LSEG as a data provider bolsters SmartSearch's data coverage, joining Dow Jones Watchlist to deliver comprehensive Watchlist screening for SmartSearch customers. Offering triple-bureau reliability, SmartSearch uses global data from Equifax, Experian and Transunion, combined with biometric and AI-driven technology to verify individuals and businesses instantly, determining if they are present on sanctions lists. The platform also then performs real-time screening for anyone who may not be illegal to do business with but who carries greater risk, such as Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs), Special Interest Persons (SIPs) and Relative or Close Associates (RCAs). This simplifies customer onboarding and ongoing monitoring of their status, as well as ensures compliance with Know Your Customer (KYC) and sanctions enforcement regulations. Making these checks as thorough and their results as well-informed as possible requires extensive data coverage and cutting-edge functionality, matching the sophisticated, ever-evolving methods used by financial criminals to carry out and conceal their illicit activities. The integration of LSEG's World-Check One solution will enhance existing SmartSearch watchlist screening and functionality by introducing comprehensive adverse media monitoring, advanced fuzzy matching for name variations, real-time monitoring capabilities, and access to data from over 100,000 reputable sources across 66 SIP categories. 'Businesses in regulated sectors face potentially unlimited fines and even jail time for non-compliance with AML regulation, as well as unwittingly becoming a cog in the financial crime machine if a criminal slips through the net - implicating the business in facilitating drug smuggling, human trafficking and even terrorism,' said Fraser Mitchell, Chief Product Officer at SmartSearch. 'We are dedicated to helping our clients avoid this fate, which is why we've added LSEG's World-Check One Solution to our watchlist screening offering. With market-leading data coverage, our clients can quickly and confidently verify prospective customers' identities when onboarding and monitor their status throughout the relationship, enabling them to grow their business and win customers through trusted identities.' 'Both LSEG and SmartSearch share a vision to ensure convenient compliance and frictionless customer journeys.' said Teodora Christova, Global Director of Partnerships at LSEG. 'Our World-Check One Solution combines global intelligence and human expertise with the latest technology. The integration with SmartSearch will help its customers uncover hidden risks and protect the people behind the statistics.'

Finextra
6 minutes ago
- Finextra
FCA's revamped returns put pressure on bureaux and the credit providers they serve.: By Cliff Bunting
In May 2025, the FCA introduced PS25/3, a new regulatory return for firms with permissions for credit broking, debt counselling, and credit information services. It replaces the returns process introduced in 2014, which the regulator had concluded was no longer delivering the level of clarity needed to monitor risk in the market. The updated return requires firms to report activity across five categories: permissions, business model, marketing, revenue, and staffing. This gives the FCA more direct visibility into how brokers and bureaux are operating and whether their actions align with the outcomes they are expected to support. While PS25/3 does not apply to credit providers, it is already influencing the way bureaux behave, including how they configure, price, and explain their services. That makes this a sensible moment for lenders to reassess whether their bureau data contracts still reflect what the business needs and how it operates. Why this affects data buyers The FCA has made clear that it wants a more consistent understanding of how regulated firms operate. For brokers and bureaux, that means connecting internal decisions across multiple areas of the business. For those that supply credit data services, it means explaining how each product, process, and dataset fits into the wider operation. This increased scrutiny has implications for their clients. Many credit providers are still using bureau contracts that haven't changed in years. Some terms were agreed around older product sets or inherited usage patterns. In other cases, volumes or decisioning logic have evolved without a formal review of the underlying data or licensing model. This is where issues tend to surface: FCA return section What's reported Where problems often occur Permissions Regulated activities Datasets don't match product permissions or customer types Business model Products and services offered Affordability models or coverage haven't been reviewed Marketing Targeting methods Risk data is used in early-stage activity without an audit Revenue Credit vs. non-credit income No clear link between data usage and income classification Staff Incentives and oversight Teams rely on data not covered by the current contract or policy These are operational gaps, not regulatory breaches. But as bureaux are required to document and explain their activity, the services they provide, and the clients using them, will come under greater internal and commercial review. Is your bureau setup still appropriate? For many credit providers, bureau data contracts remain largely unchanged since they were first negotiated. Product configurations and licence terms may have rolled forward year after year. In some cases, the rationale for specific data decisions is no longer clear internally. For firms that have expanded their product lines or added new use cases, these arrangements may no longer reflect actual requirements. This raises practical questions: Does our current bureau agreement match our products, permissions and customer base? Have we added use cases that were never reviewed with our data supplier? Are we still paying for services that no longer support risk, compliance, or commercial activity? Can we explain how the current setup came to be and who approved it? PS25/3 has made these questions more relevant, even for firms outside the scope of the return. As bureaux respond to regulatory expectations, the structure and pricing of their services will become more deliberate. Their clients should expect, and prepare for, the same. How firms are reassessing value through benchmarking Many credit providers are now using benchmarking as a way to review their bureau arrangements. This involves comparing contract pricing, product mix, and usage against others with similar requirements, helping teams identify whether existing terms still make commercial sense. In practice, this often supports clearer internal conversations between credit risk, procurement and compliance, especially where data usage spans multiple functions. Firms typically use benchmarking to: Compare bureau costs against peer usage Identify underused or outdated services Review whether pricing reflects actual volume and footprint Establish a clearer rationale for contract terms Support mid-term negotiations based on observed market practice This doesn't require a supplier change or formal audit. It's simply a method for understanding whether current data services match today's needs and whether the right commercial structure still supports internal decisions. Conclusion PS25/3 requires brokers and bureaux to take a more structured view of their activity. That will influence how they configure and deliver their services, including to credit providers who rely on their data. For those buying from bureaux, this is a good time to revisit the terms in place and the rationale behind them. If supplier behaviour is changing, there's value in being prepared, commercially and operationally, before it becomes a requirement to do so.


Glasgow Times
6 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Shares in lenders soar after motor finance court ruling
The decision – which was handed down after the market close on Friday – saw FTSE 100 listed Lloyds shares jump nearly 8%, while Close Brothers stock soared by as much as 34% at one stage in the FTSE 250. Barclays and NatWest shares lifted 2% as the wider sector also received a shares boost. Lloyds said it believes any change to the group's cash set aside for motor finance compensation was 'unlikely to be material' following the court ruling (Yui Mok/PA) Lloyds and Close Brothers are seen as the most exposed to the motor finance saga and have put by hefty provisions for possible compensation bills relating to the affair. The UK's highest court ruled that lenders are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes, finding that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act only in the customers' interest. The decision has been seen as a 'win' for lenders by significantly limiting the potential payouts in compensation, according to experts. But the judgment left open the door for potential redress claims for very large commissions, which the Supreme Court said were unfair and therefore potentially unlawful. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said on Sunday that it would consult on an industry-wide compensation scheme, meaning millions of drivers could be owed a share of up to £18 billion – though most payouts are expected to be less than £950 each. Close Brothers – which together with South Africa's FirstRand Bank had mounted the legal challenge against a Court of Appeal ruling that 'secret' commission payments on motor finance were unlawful – said over the weekend that it welcomed the Supreme Court judgment. It had put by £165 million to cover potential redress, which sent it slumping to a £103.8 million half-year loss, and warned in March over a further £22 million hit to annual figures from legal and other costs linked to the motor finance case. Close Brothers said there 'remains uncertainty as to the range of outcomes, and the financial impact to the group, including any impact on its provisioning assessment' until the outcome of the FCA's consultation is clear. On Monday, it added: 'We look forward to engaging with the FCA in respect of the consultation.' Lloyds said it believes any change to the group's cash set aside for motor finance compensation was 'unlikely to be material', following Friday's court ruling. It has aside £1.2 billion to cover potential costs and compensation related to commission arrangements. The group is exposed to the motor finance market through its Black Horse business. But Lloyds said there continues to be a 'number of uncertainties' and will continue to review its provision. Lloyds said: 'After initial assessment of the Supreme Court judgment – and pending resolution of the outstanding uncertainties, in particular the FCA redress scheme – the group currently believes that if there is any change to the provision it is unlikely to be material in the context of the group.' Matt Britzman, senior equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said the court ruling was 'a win for UK lenders, bringing some much-needed legal certainty'. 'But it's not a home run as the FCA announced plans to explore a compensation scheme that could cost the industry £9 billion to £18 billion.' He added that Lloyds investors should be 'relatively pleased with this outcome'. 'It's broadly aligned with existing expectations, helping to alleviate fears that the final bill could be significantly higher.' The FCA said on Sunday that the consultation will be launched by early October. If the compensation scheme goes ahead, the first payments should be made in 2026. It urged consumers who are concerned they were not told about commission and think they may have paid too much to their motor finance lender to complain now. They do not need to use a claims management company or law firm and doing so could cost them around 30% of any compensation paid, according to the FCA.