Alpha Metallurgical Resources vs Warrior Met Coal
AMR and HCC side by side, both in energy. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AMR and HCC compare
Warrior Met Coal is the larger company, worth 2.3 times as much as Alpha Metallurgical Resources ($4.4B against $2.0B).
Warrior Met Coal grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (52.0% versus −5.7% for Alpha Metallurgical Resources).
Warrior Met Coal keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.5% compared with −2.4% at Alpha Metallurgical Resources.
Warrior Met Coal pays a dividend yielding 0.29%; Alpha Metallurgical Resources does not pay one.
Warrior Met Coal scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 8 for Alpha Metallurgical Resources), 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 | AMR | HCC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.0B | $4.4B |
| Share price | $153.86 | $83.35 |
| Change, 1 year | −9.5% | −0.83% |
| Change, 5 years | 233% | 296% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.84 | 0.72 |
| Employees | 3,960 | 1,485 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 19.0× |
| P/S | 0.9× (better) | 2.4× |
| P/B | 1.3× (better) | 1.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.8× | 8.3× (better) |
| FCF yield | −0.71% | – |
| Fair value | $156.99 | $63.10 |
| Margin of safety | 2.0% (better) | −32.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −5.7% | 52.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.5% | 10.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 560% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 555% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 9.3% | 31.7% (better) |
| Operating margin | −2.4% | 13.9% (better) |
| Net margin | −2.4% | 12.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | −0.66% | – |
| Return on equity | −3.2% | 10.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −3.4% | 11.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.01 (better) | 0.07 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −3.14 | −0.57 |
| Interest coverage | −14.4× | 16.6× (better) |
| Current ratio | 3.00 | 4.20 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.97 | 6.45 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.29% |
| Payout ratio | – | 7.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 9.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.29% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.0% | 104% |
| Held by insiders | 20.3% | 1.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $49.6M (better) | −$24.8M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 14.3% | 8.6% |
Go deeper
- AMR stock overview
- AMR income statement
- AMR valuation and score
- HCC stock overview
- HCC income statement
- HCC valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.