Interest in geographical names based on names of ores (железо ‘iron’, медь ‘copper’) and their generic designation (руда ‘ore’) is due to the fact that ore deposits are linked to a specific area and at the same time have a high value for the national economy, therefore, it is logical to expect their reflection in toponymy. The research material is a set of geographical names formed from the words железо, медь, руда and their derivatives recorded in the Russian North (Arkhangelsk and Vologda Regions) and in the Urals (Perm and Sverdlovsk Regions) during the work of the Toponymic Expedition of Ural University between the 1960s and 2010s. Taking into account the type of objects denominated, their areal distribution, and accompanying contexts, the author determines the motivation for such names. Additionally, the article examines alternative toponymic markers (ржавец ‘viscous, swampy place, swamp covered with a reddish-brown coating, film (due to ironstone it contains)’, домница ‘blacksmith forge’), which could indicate the mining and production of iron. Moreover, the article examines data from the substrate toponymy of the Russian North with the same meaning (Ровдозеро, cf. Veps. roud ‘iron’; Розмега, cf. Veps. rozḿe ‘rust (on water)’). In the Russian North, железный is used to denote objects that are mostly water bodies — rivers, streams, swamps, and lakes, most of which are located in old iron-producing areas. Some of the names (for example, the metaphorical model Железные Ворота ‘Iron Gate’) are not related to iron ore deposits. Geographical names derived from the words руда, рудный и рудник are “synonymous” to toponyms referring to iron: water bodies also predominate among them, and most explanatory contexts associate them with the extraction of ore or the corresponding colour of water. The areas of toponyms formed from the words железо ‘iron’, ржавец ‘rusty’ and рудный (рудник) ‘mine’ in the Russian North overlap with and correspond to the territory of the main areas of the peasant iron industry. There are significantly fewer toponyms associated with copper mining in the Russian North: perhaps because there were practically no copper deposits. Most of the objects are fields and mows and the context does not allow the author to say which part of their names is associated with copper mining and which has a metaphorical meaning. In the Urals, ore toponymy is significantly less abundant than that of the Russian North: this applies to both железо and медь toponyms, and names derived from the words рудный and рудник. The only toponymic model that is massively represented in the Ural material is names derived from the word ржавец. Ore toponymy in the Russian North is more diverse and widespread than that of the Urals, which is probably due to the fact that the peasant iron industry in the Russian North was more widespread and lasted longer, while the Urals switched to factory production earlier.