BHP vs Cleveland-Cliffs
BHP and CLF side by side, both in materials. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BHP and CLF compare
BHP grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (14.6% versus 4.0% for Cleveland-Cliffs).
BHP keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 16.7% compared with −4.6% at Cleveland-Cliffs.
BHP scores higher on the StockData Score (8 against 5 for Cleveland-Cliffs), 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 | BHP | CLF |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | – | $8.1B |
| Share price | $81.82 | $14.25 |
| Change, 1 year | 43.2% | 1.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 53.2% | −36.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.90 | 1.78 |
| Employees | 632K | 25K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | – | 0.4× |
| P/B | – | 1.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 56.3× |
| FCF yield | – | −10.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 14.6% (better) | 4.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 0.64% | 28.3% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 9.0% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 8.9% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −2.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | −1.1% |
| Operating margin | 40.6% (better) | −4.2% |
| Net margin | 16.7% (better) | −4.6% |
| FCF margin | 20.3% (better) | −4.5% |
| Return on equity | 19.9% (better) | −15.3% |
| Return on invested capital | 40.7% (better) | −4.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 1.37 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 26.88 |
| Interest coverage | 11.6× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.88 | 1.89 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | – | 1.29 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 1 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Payout ratio | 92.7% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −3.1% | – |
| Shareholder yield | – | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 2.3% | 84.3% |
| Held by insiders | 0.02% | 1.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$315K (better) | −$42.0M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 13.9% |
Go deeper
- BHP stock overview
- BHP income statement
- BHP valuation and score
- CLF stock overview
- CLF income statement
- CLF valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.