Martin Marietta Materials vs Chemical & Mining Co of Chile
MLM and SQM 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 MLM and SQM compare
Martin Marietta Materials grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (14.8% versus 1.0% for Chemical & Mining Co of Chile).
Martin Marietta Materials keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 36.7% compared with 12.9% at Chemical & Mining Co of Chile.
Martin Marietta Materials pays a dividend yielding 0.62%; Chemical & Mining Co of Chile does not pay one.
Martin Marietta Materials scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 7 for Chemical & Mining Co of Chile), 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 | MLM | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $32.5B | – |
| Share price | $540.41 | $54.65 |
| Change, 1 year | −12.4% | 18.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 31.1% | −15.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.91 | 0.97 |
| Employees | 9,600 | 590 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 4 | 4 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.3× | – |
| P/S | 4.9× | – |
| P/B | 2.8× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 18.5× | – |
| P/FCF | 40.1× | – |
| PEG | 1.25 | – |
| FCF yield | 2.5% | – |
| Fair value | $643.33 | – |
| Margin of safety | 16.0% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 14.8% (better) | 1.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.4% | 20.3% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 123% (better) | −14.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 126% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 10.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 28.2% | 29.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 20.6% | 23.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 36.7% (better) | 12.9% |
| FCF margin | 12.1% (better) | 9.6% |
| Return on equity | 23.5% (better) | 10.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 6.9% | 18.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.52 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.82 | – |
| Interest coverage | 5.9× (better) | 5.5× |
| Current ratio | 1.41 | 3.27 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.08 | – |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.62% | – |
| Payout ratio | 8.2% | 0.73% |
| Years of dividend growth | 8 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.7% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.62% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | – |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.7% | 13.1% |
| Held by insiders | 19.1% | 0.00% |
| Superinvestors holding | 4 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.6% | – |
Go deeper
- MLM stock overview
- MLM income statement
- MLM valuation and score
- SQM stock overview
- SQM income statement
- SQM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.