Compass Minerals International vs Hecla Mining
CMP and HL 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 CMP and HL compare
Hecla Mining is the larger company, worth 9.8 times as much as Compass Minerals International ($9.5B against $969M).
On earnings, Hecla Mining is cheaper: it trades at 25.2× trailing earnings, against 53.7× for Compass Minerals International.
Hecla Mining grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (84.1% versus 5.5% for Compass Minerals International).
Hecla Mining keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 21.0% compared with 1.4% at Compass Minerals International.
Hecla Mining pays a dividend yielding 0.11%; Compass Minerals International does not pay one.
Hecla Mining scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 7 for Compass Minerals International), 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 | CMP | HL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $969M | $9.5B |
| Share price | $23.08 | $14.12 |
| Change, 1 year | 31.1% | −6.0% |
| Change, 5 years | −56.1% | 134% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.03 | 1.24 |
| Employees | 1,849 | 1,865 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 22 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 53.7× | 25.2× (better) |
| P/S | 0.7× (better) | 5.2× |
| P/B | 3.7× | 3.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.3× (better) | 8.7× |
| P/FCF | 12.4× (better) | 17.8× |
| FCF yield | 8.0% (better) | 5.6% |
| Fair value | $22.73 | $21.67 |
| Margin of safety | −1.6% | 34.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.5% | 84.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.9% | 15.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 92.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 80.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 17.2% | 52.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 8.9% | 45.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.4% | 21.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 6.0% | 29.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 7.2% | 14.5% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 6.0% | 26.5% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.72 | 0.00 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.97 (better) | −0.76 |
| Interest coverage | 1.7× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.01 | 5.96 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.94 | 12.26 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.11% |
| Payout ratio | – | 2.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 19.7% |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.05% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.16% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.6% | 72.2% |
| Held by insiders | 1.2% | 0.79% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$7.7M |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.0% | 5.7% |
Go deeper
- CMP stock overview
- CMP income statement
- CMP valuation and score
- HL stock overview
- HL income statement
- HL valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.