Cleveland-Cliffs vs Southern Copper
CLF and SCCO side by side, both in materials. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CLF and SCCO compare
Southern Copper is the larger company, worth 18 times as much as Cleveland-Cliffs ($148B against $8.1B).
Southern Copper grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (38.7% versus 4.0% for Cleveland-Cliffs).
Southern Copper pays a dividend yielding 2.2%; Cleveland-Cliffs does not pay one.
Southern Copper scores higher on the StockData Score (11 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 | CLF | SCCO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.1B | $148B |
| Share price | $14.25 | $177.53 |
| Change, 1 year | 1.1% | 25.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −36.3% | 199% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.78 | 1.09 |
| Employees | 25K | 17K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 1 |
| Health score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 23.1× |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 8.7× |
| P/B | 1.5× (better) | 11.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 56.3× | 13.5× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 26.5× |
| PEG | – | 1.50 |
| FCF yield | −10.5% | 3.8% (better) |
| Fair value | – | $153.82 |
| Margin of safety | – | −15.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.0% | 38.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 28.3% (better) | 10.9% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 67.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 20.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | −1.1% | 65.2% (better) |
| Operating margin | −4.2% | 58.6% (better) |
| Net margin | −4.6% | – |
| FCF margin | −4.5% | 32.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | −15.3% | – |
| Return on invested capital | −4.7% | 49.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.37 | 0.59 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 26.88 (better) | −0.01 |
| Current ratio | 1.89 | 4.31 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.29 | 9.99 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 1 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 1 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 15.6% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 2.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 84.3% | 9.2% |
| Held by insiders | 1.2% | 0.07% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$42.0M | −$3.4M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 13.9% | 1.3% |
Go deeper
- CLF stock overview
- CLF income statement
- CLF valuation and score
- SCCO stock overview
- SCCO income statement
- SCCO valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.