Luxfer vs Minerals Technologies
LXFR and MTX side by side, both in chemicals and allied products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LXFR and MTX compare
Minerals Technologies is the larger company, worth 4.1 times as much as Luxfer ($1.9B against $464M).
Minerals Technologies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.8% versus −11.8% for Luxfer).
Luxfer keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 1.7% compared with −3.1% at Minerals Technologies.
Both pay dividends: Luxfer yields 2.2% and Minerals Technologies 0.59%.
Luxfer scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 7 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 | LXFR | MTX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $464M | $1.9B |
| Share price | $17.34 | $61.33 |
| Change, 1 year | 42.0% | 8.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −17.8% | −15.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.82 | 0.95 |
| Employees | 1,350 | 216 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 75.4× | – |
| P/S | 1.3× | 0.9× (better) |
| P/B | 2.1× | 1.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 22.4× | – |
| P/FCF | 24.6× | 14.8× (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.1% | 6.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $9.09 | $58.58 |
| Margin of safety | −90.7% | −4.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −11.8% | 4.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.4% | 5.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −56.6% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −56.6% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −17.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 25.1% (better) | 23.9% |
| Operating margin | 6.3% (better) | −1.6% |
| Net margin | 1.7% (better) | −3.1% |
| FCF margin | 5.3% | 5.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 2.7% (better) | −4.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 5.5% (better) | −1.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.26 (better) | 0.61 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.69 | – |
| Interest coverage | 6.6× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.47 (better) | 1.45 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.57 (better) | 2.23 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.2% (better) | 0.59% |
| Payout ratio | 221% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 3 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 17.6% |
| Buyback yield | 0.56% | 1.1% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.8% (better) | 1.7% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 93.0% | 102% |
| Held by insiders | 2.0% | 1.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$322K (better) | −$3.7M |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.7% | 2.1% |
Go deeper
- LXFR stock overview
- LXFR income statement
- LXFR 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.