Core Natural Resources vs Warrior Met Coal
CNR and HCC side by side, both in energy. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CNR and HCC compare
Core Natural Resources and Warrior Met Coal are about the same size, with market caps of $4.3B and $4.4B.
On earnings, Warrior Met Coal is cheaper: it trades at 19.0× trailing earnings, against 55.3× for Core Natural Resources.
Warrior Met Coal grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (52.0% versus 19.4% for Core Natural Resources).
Warrior Met Coal keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.5% compared with 1.8% at Core Natural Resources.
Both pay dividends: Core Natural Resources yields 0.46% and Warrior Met Coal 0.29%.
Warrior Met Coal scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 11 for Core Natural Resources), 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 | CNR | HCC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.3B | $4.4B |
| Share price | $86.21 | $83.35 |
| Change, 1 year | −2.1% | −0.83% |
| Change, 5 years | 279% | 296% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.54 | 0.72 |
| Employees | 4,850 | 1,485 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 55.3× | 19.0× (better) |
| P/S | 1.0× (better) | 2.4× |
| P/B | 1.2× (better) | 1.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.7× (better) | 8.3× |
| P/FCF | 14.2× | – |
| FCF yield | 7.0% | – |
| Fair value | $99.17 | $63.10 |
| Margin of safety | 13.1% (better) | −32.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 19.4% | 52.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 32.5% (better) | 10.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 560% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 555% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 17.3% | 31.7% (better) |
| Operating margin | 2.2% | 13.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.8% | 12.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 6.8% | – |
| Return on equity | 2.1% | 10.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 2.7% | 11.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.13 | 0.07 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.04 (better) | −0.57 |
| Interest coverage | 2.2× | 16.6× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.71 | 4.20 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.14 | 6.45 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.46% (better) | 0.29% |
| Payout ratio | 26.2% | 7.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 9.9% |
| Buyback yield | 4.9% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 5.4% (better) | 0.29% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 94.6% | 104% |
| Held by insiders | 2.5% | 1.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$6.7M (better) | −$24.8M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.7% | 8.6% |
Go deeper
- CNR stock overview
- CNR income statement
- CNR valuation and score
- HCC stock overview
- HCC income statement
- HCC valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.