Calumet vs Quaker Chemical
CLMT and KWR side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CLMT and KWR compare
Calumet is the larger company, worth 1.7 times as much as Quaker Chemical ($4.4B against $2.6B).
Calumet grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.8% versus 8.7% for Quaker Chemical).
Quaker Chemical keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.8% compared with −3.0% at Calumet.
Quaker Chemical pays a dividend yielding 1.4%; Calumet does not pay one.
Quaker Chemical scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 3 for Calumet), 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 | CLMT | KWR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.4B | $2.6B |
| Share price | $49.65 | $150.95 |
| Change, 1 year | 154% | 15.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 333% | −44.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.83 | 1.44 |
| Employees | 1,540 | 4,700 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 3 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 1 | 1 |
| Health score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 26.9× |
| P/S | 1.0× (better) | 1.3× |
| P/B | – | 1.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 36.2× | 14.8× (better) |
| P/FCF | 74.7× | 65.9× (better) |
| FCF yield | 1.3% | 1.5% (better) |
| Fair value | – | $155.70 |
| Margin of safety | – | 3.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 12.8% (better) | 8.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 12.8% (better) | 5.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 6.6% | 35.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 1.0% | 7.6% (better) |
| Net margin | −3.0% | 4.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 1.3% | 1.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 7.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 3.5% | 5.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.63 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 11.95 | 3.23 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 0.2× | 3.8× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.84 | 2.47 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.33 | 2.48 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.4% |
| Payout ratio | – | 36.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 16 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 5.0% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 1.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 52.4% | 91.9% |
| Held by insiders | 20.5% | 22.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$20.7M | −$208K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.1% | 13.1% |
Go deeper
- CLMT stock overview
- CLMT income statement
- CLMT valuation and score
- KWR stock overview
- KWR income statement
- KWR valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.