Chemical & Mining Co of Chile vs Vulcan Materials
SQM and VMC 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 SQM and VMC compare
Vulcan Materials grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (1.6% versus 1.0% for Chemical & Mining Co of Chile).
Vulcan Materials keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.8% compared with 12.9% at Chemical & Mining Co of Chile.
Vulcan Materials pays a dividend yielding 0.73%; Chemical & Mining Co of Chile does not pay one.
Vulcan Materials scores higher on the StockData Score (15 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 | SQM | VMC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | – | $36.4B |
| Share price | $54.65 | $281.25 |
| Change, 1 year | 18.6% | −4.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −15.5% | 43.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.97 | 0.82 |
| Employees | 590 | 11K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 4 | 4 |
| Health score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 33.3× |
| P/S | – | 4.6× |
| P/B | – | 4.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 17.5× |
| P/FCF | – | 46.7× |
| PEG | – | 1.42 |
| FCF yield | – | 2.1% |
| Fair value | – | $214.77 |
| Margin of safety | – | −31.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.0% | 1.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 20.3% (better) | 10.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −14.2% | −1.4% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 0.36% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 13.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 29.6% (better) | 27.5% |
| Operating margin | 23.2% (better) | 20.3% |
| Net margin | 12.9% | 13.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 9.6% | 9.8% (better) |
| Return on equity | 10.8% | 12.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 18.4% (better) | 9.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.56 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 1.96 |
| Interest coverage | 5.5× | 7.2× (better) |
| Current ratio | 3.27 (better) | 1.43 |
| Altman Z-score | – | 3.95 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.73% |
| Payout ratio | 0.73% | 24.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 12 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 7.6% |
| Buyback yield | – | 3.2% |
| Shareholder yield | – | 3.9% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 13.1% | 98.8% |
| Held by insiders | 0.00% | 0.21% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$15.0M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 4 |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 4.1% |
Go deeper
- SQM stock overview
- SQM income statement
- SQM valuation and score
- VMC stock overview
- VMC income statement
- VMC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.