Martin Marietta Materials vs Teck Resources
MLM and TECK 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 TECK compare
Teck Resources grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (18.7% versus 14.8% for Martin Marietta Materials).
Martin Marietta Materials keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 36.7% compared with 13.0% at Teck Resources.
Martin Marietta Materials pays a dividend yielding 0.62%; Teck Resources does not pay one.
Martin Marietta Materials scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 8 for Teck Resources), 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 | TECK |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $32.5B | – |
| Share price | $540.41 | $60.61 |
| Change, 1 year | −12.4% | 37.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 31.1% | 124% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.91 | 1.08 |
| Employees | 9,600 | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 4 | 4 |
| 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% | 18.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.4% (better) | 3.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 123% | 245% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 126% | 263% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 10.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 28.2% (better) | 24.7% |
| Operating margin | 20.6% | 20.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 36.7% (better) | 13.0% |
| FCF margin | 12.1% (better) | −3.3% |
| Return on equity | 23.5% (better) | 5.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 6.9% (better) | 6.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.52 | 0.16 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.82 (better) | −0.28 |
| Interest coverage | 5.9× (better) | 2.5× |
| Current ratio | 1.41 | 2.54 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.08 | – |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.62% | – |
| Payout ratio | 8.2% | – |
| 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% | 70.1% |
| Held by insiders | 19.1% | 0.00% |
| Superinvestors holding | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.6% | – |
Go deeper
- MLM stock overview
- MLM income statement
- MLM valuation and score
- TECK stock overview
- TECK income statement
- TECK valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.