Quaker Chemical vs Minerals Technologies
KWR and MTX side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How KWR and MTX compare
Quaker Chemical is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Minerals Technologies ($2.6B against $2.0B).
Quaker Chemical grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.7% versus 4.8% for Minerals Technologies).
Quaker Chemical keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.8% compared with −3.1% at Minerals Technologies.
Both pay dividends: Quaker Chemical yields 1.4% and Minerals Technologies 0.57%.
Quaker Chemical scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 8 for Minerals Technologies), 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 | KWR | MTX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.6B | $2.0B |
| Share price | $150.95 | $62.74 |
| Change, 1 year | 15.7% | 13.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −44.2% | −17.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.44 | 0.95 |
| Employees | 4,700 | 216 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 1 |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 26.9× | – |
| P/S | 1.3× | 0.9× (better) |
| P/B | 1.8× | 1.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.8× | – |
| P/FCF | 65.9× | 15.2× (better) |
| FCF yield | 1.5% | 6.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $155.70 | $58.66 |
| Margin of safety | 3.1% (better) | −7.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.7% (better) | 4.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.9% (better) | 5.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 35.8% (better) | 23.9% |
| Operating margin | 7.6% (better) | −1.6% |
| Net margin | 4.8% (better) | −3.1% |
| FCF margin | 1.9% | 5.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 7.0% (better) | −4.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 5.2% (better) | −1.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.63 | 0.61 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.23 | – |
| Interest coverage | 3.8× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.47 (better) | 1.45 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.48 (better) | 2.25 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.4% (better) | 0.57% |
| Payout ratio | 36.2% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 5.0% | 17.6% (better) |
| Buyback yield | – | 1.1% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.4% | 1.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 91.9% | 102% |
| Held by insiders | 22.4% | 1.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$208K (better) | −$4.1M |
| Short interest, % of float | 13.1% | 2.8% |
Go deeper
- KWR stock overview
- KWR income statement
- KWR valuation and score
- MTX stock overview
- MTX income statement
- MTX valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.