Intrepid Potash vs United States Lime & Minerals
IPI and USLM 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 IPI and USLM compare
United States Lime & Minerals is the larger company, worth 7.5 times as much as Intrepid Potash ($3.3B against $444M).
On earnings, Intrepid Potash is cheaper: it trades at 18.0× trailing earnings, against 25.1× for United States Lime & Minerals.
United States Lime & Minerals keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 35.1% compared with 8.0% at Intrepid Potash.
United States Lime & Minerals pays a dividend yielding 0.21%; Intrepid Potash does not pay one.
United States Lime & Minerals scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 10 for Intrepid Potash), 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 | IPI | USLM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $444M | $3.3B |
| Share price | $32.97 | $116.43 |
| Change, 1 year | 25.5% | −2.4% |
| Change, 5 years | −19.7% | 334% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.77 | 0.91 |
| Employees | 478 | 346 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.0× (better) | 25.1× |
| P/S | 1.5× (better) | 8.8× |
| P/B | 0.9× (better) | 4.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.4× (better) | 15.8× |
| P/FCF | 17.4× (better) | 33.8× |
| PEG | – | 0.58 |
| FCF yield | 5.8% (better) | 3.0% |
| Fair value | $43.01 | $89.52 |
| Margin of safety | 23.3% (better) | −30.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | – | 4.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 18.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 2.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 2.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 36.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 21.1% | 47.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 4.2% | 41.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 8.0% | 35.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.5% | 25.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 4.8% | 20.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 3.2% | 44.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Interest coverage | 503× | – |
| Current ratio | 5.96 | 22.29 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.65 | 34.23 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.21% |
| Payout ratio | – | 5.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 2 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 13.4% |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.08% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.28% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 64.7% | 32.6% |
| Held by insiders | 21.7% | 62.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$217K | −$154K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.2% | 9.8% |
Go deeper
- IPI stock overview
- IPI income statement
- IPI valuation and score
- USLM stock overview
- USLM income statement
- USLM valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.