Compass Minerals International vs Hecla Mining
CMP and HL side by side, both in mining & quarrying of nonmetallic minerals (no fuels). Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CMP and HL compare
Hecla Mining is the larger company, worth 9.3 times as much as Compass Minerals International ($9.1B against $979M).
On earnings, Hecla Mining is cheaper: it trades at 27.6× trailing earnings, against 54.2× for Compass Minerals International.
Hecla Mining grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (74.4% versus 5.5% for Compass Minerals International).
Hecla Mining keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 20.8% compared with 1.4% at Compass Minerals International.
Hecla Mining pays a dividend yielding 0.12%; Compass Minerals International does not pay one.
Hecla Mining scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 8 for Compass Minerals International), 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 | CMP | HL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $979M | $9.1B |
| Share price | $23.31 | $13.53 |
| Change, 1 year | 35.4% | 8.0% |
| Change, 5 years | −67.8% | 126% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.04 | 1.27 |
| Employees | 1,849 | 1,865 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 22 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 54.2× | 27.6× (better) |
| P/S | 0.8× (better) | 5.7× |
| P/B | 3.7× | 3.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.4× (better) | 9.4× |
| P/FCF | 12.6× (better) | 18.8× |
| FCF yield | 8.0% (better) | 5.3% |
| Fair value | $24.16 | $19.71 |
| Margin of safety | 3.5% | 31.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.5% | 74.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.9% | 15.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 233% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 206% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 17.2% | 53.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 8.9% | 46.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.4% | 20.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 6.0% | 30.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 7.2% | 13.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 6.0% | 23.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.72 | 0.00 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.97 (better) | −0.52 |
| Interest coverage | 1.7× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.01 | 5.20 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.94 | 12.21 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.12% |
| Payout ratio | – | 3.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 19.7% |
| Buyback yield | – | −0.41% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% (better) | −0.30% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.6% | 72.2% |
| Held by insiders | 1.1% | 0.79% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$10.2M |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.0% | 5.6% |
Go deeper
- CMP stock overview
- CMP income statement
- CMP valuation and score
- HL stock overview
- HL income statement
- HL valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.