Hecla Mining vs Knife River
HL and KNF 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 HL and KNF compare
Hecla Mining is the larger company, worth 2.8 times as much as Knife River ($9.0B against $3.2B).
On earnings, Knife River is cheaper: it trades at 23.1× trailing earnings, against 23.8× for Hecla Mining.
Hecla Mining grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (84.1% versus 12.1% for Knife River).
Hecla Mining keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 21.0% compared with 4.2% at Knife River.
Hecla Mining pays a dividend yielding 0.12%; Knife River does not pay one.
Hecla Mining scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 8 for Knife River), 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 | HL | KNF |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $9.0B | $3.2B |
| Share price | $13.35 | $56.68 |
| Change, 1 year | −9.6% | −20.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 121% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.22 | 1.02 |
| Employees | 1,865 | 5,298 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 22 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 23.8× | 23.1× (better) |
| P/S | 4.9× | 1.0× (better) |
| P/B | 3.2× | 2.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.2× (better) | 9.8× |
| P/FCF | 16.9× (better) | 74.7× |
| PEG | – | 2.22 |
| FCF yield | 5.9% (better) | 1.3% |
| Fair value | $21.75 | $54.80 |
| Margin of safety | 38.6% (better) | −3.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 84.1% (better) | 12.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 15.5% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 92.2% (better) | −8.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 80.6% (better) | −8.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 52.6% (better) | 17.8% |
| Operating margin | 45.2% (better) | 8.3% |
| Net margin | 21.0% (better) | 4.2% |
| FCF margin | 29.2% (better) | 1.3% |
| Return on equity | 14.5% (better) | 9.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 26.5% (better) | 6.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 (better) | 1.01 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.76 | 3.23 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 3.1× |
| Current ratio | 5.96 (better) | 2.66 |
| Altman Z-score | 11.68 (better) | 2.32 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.12% | – |
| Payout ratio | 2.8% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 19.7% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.05% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 0.17% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 72.2% | 96.7% |
| Held by insiders | 0.79% | 0.70% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$7.7M | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.7% | 7.2% |
Go deeper
- HL stock overview
- HL income statement
- HL valuation and score
- KNF stock overview
- KNF income statement
- KNF valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.