Albemarle vs Celanese
ALB and CE side by side, both in chemicals and allied products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ALB and CE compare
Albemarle is the larger company, worth 2.0 times as much as Celanese ($10.7B against $5.4B).
Albemarle grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (18.3% versus −2.2% for Celanese).
Albemarle keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.8% compared with −12.0% at Celanese.
Both pay dividends: Albemarle yields 1.8% and Celanese 0.18%.
Albemarle scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 7 for Celanese), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | ALB | CE |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.7B | $5.4B |
| Share price | $91.00 | $49.30 |
| Change, 1 year | −7.0% | 22.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −66.6% | −70.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.68 | 1.10 |
| Employees | 7,800 | 11K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 337× | – |
| P/S | 1.8× | 0.6× (better) |
| P/B | 1.0× (better) | 1.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.6× (better) | 115× |
| P/FCF | 8.0× | 7.6× (better) |
| FCF yield | 12.5% | 13.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $117.07 | $86.71 |
| Margin of safety | 22.3% | 43.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 18.3% (better) | −2.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.4% | 11.0% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 23.8% (better) | 20.9% |
| Operating margin | 4.3% (better) | −7.1% |
| Net margin | 3.8% (better) | −12.0% |
| FCF margin | 22.7% (better) | 7.3% |
| Return on equity | 2.2% (better) | −24.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 1.1% (better) | −3.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.18 (better) | 2.88 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.27 (better) | 74.43 |
| Interest coverage | – | −1.0× |
| Current ratio | 2.09 (better) | 1.45 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.24 (better) | 1.30 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.8% (better) | 0.18% |
| Payout ratio | 85.0% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 1.0% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.8% (better) | 0.18% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.3% | 111% |
| Held by insiders | 0.35% | 0.41% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$7.4M | $593K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 10.0% | 5.8% |
Go deeper
- ALB stock overview
- ALB income statement
- ALB valuation and score
- CE stock overview
- CE income statement
- CE valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.