ALB vs. CLF: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison
UpdatedHere’s a clear look at ALB and CLF, comparing key factors like performance, valuation metrics, dividends, and financial strength. It’s built for investors or anyone curious to see how these two stocks match up.
Company Overview
ALB dwarfs CLF in market cap, clocking in at 6.64 billion USD—about 1.92 times the 3.46 billion USD of its counterpart.
ALB at 1.71 and CLF at 2.04 move in sync when it comes to market volatility.
| Symbol | ALB | CLF |
|---|---|---|
| Company Name | Albemarle Corporation | Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. |
| Country | US | US |
| Sector | Basic Materials | Basic Materials |
| Industry | Chemicals - Specialty | Steel |
| CEO | Mr. Jerry Kent Masters Jr. | Mr. C. Lourenco Goncalves |
| Price | 56.44 USD | 7 USD |
| Market Cap | 6.64 billion USD | 3.46 billion USD |
| Beta | 1.714 | 2.039 |
| Exchange | NYSE | NYSE |
| IPO Date | February 22, 1994 | November 5, 1987 |
| ADR | No | No |
Performance Comparison
This chart compares the performance of ALB and CLF over the past year by tracking the growth of an initial $10,000 investment in each (starting one year ago).
Hover over the lines to see the investment’s value and total return (%) at specific dates.
Data is adjusted for dividends and splits.
Valuation Metrics Comparison
The section examines key financial ratios to assess the valuation of ALB and CLF based on earnings, cash flow, sales, and book value. Pay attention to the following notable points where extreme values stand out.
- Both ALB at -5.82 and CLF at -2.93 have negative P/E values over the past twelve months. This reflects consistent losses rather than profits, meaning their current operations aren’t generating positive net income—a situation that could challenge their financial stability if prolonged.
- Both ALB at -47.57 and CLF at -3.29 have negative Price-to-Free Cash Flow values. This reveals they’ve been consuming more cash than they generate over the past year—a persistent cash drain that could strain their ability to operate without external funding.
| Symbol | ALB | CLF |
|---|---|---|
| Price-to-Earnings Ratio (P/E, TTM) | -5.82 | -2.93 |
| Forward PEG Ratio (TTM) | 31.25 | 0.05 |
| Price-to-Sales Ratio (P/S, TTM) | 1.30 | 0.19 |
| Price-to-Book Ratio (P/B, TTM) | 0.66 | 0.55 |
| Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (P/FCF, TTM) | -47.57 | -3.29 |
| EV-to-EBITDA (TTM) | -10.79 | -174.71 |
| EV-to-Sales (TTM) | 1.72 | 0.59 |
| EV-to-Free Cash Flow (TTM) | -62.77 | -10.45 |
Dividend Comparison
ALB’s 2.86% yield offers steady income while retaining earnings for growth, unlike CLF, which pays none, reinvesting fully—likely in expansion or R&D—for investors eyeing future gains. This pits ALB’s balanced approach against CLF’s long-term focus.
| Symbol | ALB | CLF |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield (TTM) | 2.86% | 0.00% |
Financial Strength Metrics Comparison
This section dives into the financial resilience of ALB and CLF, spotlighting key metrics like liquidity, leverage, and debt coverage. Check out the standout observations below where notable differences or extremes pop up.
- At 0.64, CLF’s quick ratio falls below 0.8, where liquid assets, minus inventory, can’t keep up with short-term bills—possibly riding on cash flow. By contrast, ALB hits 1.26, covering its bases comfortably.
- ALB at -9.99 and CLF at -2.82 both scrape by with interest coverage under 1.5. Earnings are stretched thin against interest bills, leaving little wiggle room if profits drop.
| Symbol | ALB | CLF |
|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio (TTM) | 2.11 | 2.13 |
| Quick Ratio (TTM) | 1.26 | 0.64 |
| Debt-to-Equity Ratio (TTM) | 0.36 | 1.22 |
| Debt-to-Assets Ratio (TTM) | 0.21 | 0.36 |
| Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) | -9.99 | -2.82 |