Air Products & Chemicals vs Minerals Technologies
APD and MTX 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 APD and MTX compare
Air Products & Chemicals is the larger company, worth 36 times as much as Minerals Technologies ($70.5B against $2.0B).
Minerals Technologies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.8% versus 4.5% for Air Products & Chemicals).
Air Products & Chemicals keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of −0.38% compared with −3.1% at Minerals Technologies.
Both pay dividends: Air Products & Chemicals yields 2.3% and Minerals Technologies 0.57%.
Air Products & Chemicals scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 8 for Minerals Technologies), 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 | APD | MTX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $70.5B | $2.0B |
| Share price | $316.43 | $62.74 |
| Change, 1 year | 27.4% | 13.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 2.3% | −17.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.71 | 0.95 |
| Employees | 21K | 216 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | 5.6× | 0.9× (better) |
| P/B | 5.1× | 1.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 76.9× | – |
| P/FCF | – | 15.2× |
| FCF yield | −0.43% | 6.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $94.33 | $58.66 |
| Margin of safety | −235% | −7.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.5% | 4.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.3% (better) | 5.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −103% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −103% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 32.1% (better) | 23.9% |
| Operating margin | −4.7% | −1.6% (better) |
| Net margin | −0.38% (better) | −3.1% |
| FCF margin | −2.4% | 5.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | −0.32% (better) | −4.1% |
| Return on invested capital | −3.3% | −1.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.06 (better) | 0.61 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.09 | – |
| Interest coverage | −2.7× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.08 | 1.45 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.61 (better) | 2.25 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.3% (better) | 0.57% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 6.6% | 17.6% (better) |
| Buyback yield | – | 1.1% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.3% (better) | 1.7% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 91.3% | 102% |
| Held by insiders | 0.44% | 1.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$20.8M | −$4.1M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.3% | 2.8% |
Go deeper
- APD stock overview
- APD income statement
- APD valuation and score
- MTX stock overview
- MTX income statement
- MTX valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.