LSB Industries vs CVR Partners, LP
LXU and UAN 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 LXU and UAN compare
CVR Partners, LP is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as LSB Industries ($1.2B against $823M).
On earnings, CVR Partners, LP is cheaper: it trades at 7.4× trailing earnings, against 18.4× for LSB Industries.
CVR Partners, LP grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.5% versus 13.0% for LSB Industries).
CVR Partners, LP keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 23.7% compared with 7.0% at LSB Industries.
CVR Partners, LP pays a dividend yielding 9.3%; LSB Industries does not pay one.
CVR Partners, LP scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 11 for LSB Industries), 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 | LXU | UAN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $823M | $1.2B |
| Share price | $11.43 | $112.60 |
| Change, 1 year | 15.1% | 16.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 17.1% | 36.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.49 | 0.51 |
| Employees | 513 | 320 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 2 | 2 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.4× | 7.4× (better) |
| P/S | 1.2× (better) | 1.8× |
| P/B | 1.5× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.6× | 5.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 12.8× | 8.2× (better) |
| FCF yield | 7.8% | 12.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $17.53 | $243.67 |
| Margin of safety | 34.8% | 53.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 13.0% | 17.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.9% (better) | 11.6% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 82.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 82.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 19.9% | 33.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | 11.2% | 28.1% (better) |
| Net margin | 7.0% | 23.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 9.7% | 21.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | 8.7% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 8.2% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.79 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.48 (better) | 1.57 |
| Interest coverage | 2.6× | – |
| Current ratio | 3.01 (better) | 3.01 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.00 | – |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 | 8 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 9.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 9.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 71.7% | 53.6% |
| Held by insiders | 24.4% | 78.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$81.9M | – |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.8% | 8.6% |
Go deeper
- LXU stock overview
- LXU income statement
- LXU valuation and score
- UAN stock overview
- UAN income statement
- UAN valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.