ALB vs. HL: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison
UpdatedHere’s a clear look at ALB and HL, 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 dominates in value with a market cap of 6.64 billion USD, eclipsing HL’s 3.21 billion USD by roughly 2.07×.
With betas of 1.71 for ALB and 1.57 for HL, both show similar volatility profiles relative to the overall market.
| Symbol | ALB | HL |
|---|---|---|
| Company Name | Albemarle Corporation | Hecla Mining Company |
| Country | US | US |
| Sector | Basic Materials | Basic Materials |
| Industry | Chemicals - Specialty | Gold |
| CEO | Mr. Jerry Kent Masters Jr. | Mr. Robert L. Krcmarov |
| Price | 56.44 USD | 5.07 USD |
| Market Cap | 6.64 billion USD | 3.21 billion USD |
| Beta | 1.71 | 1.57 |
| Exchange | NYSE | NYSE |
| IPO Date | February 22, 1994 | March 17, 1980 |
| ADR | No | No |
Performance Comparison
This chart compares the performance of ALB and HL 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 HL based on earnings, cash flow, sales, and book value. Pay attention to the following notable points where extreme values stand out.
- ALB posts a negative P/E of -5.82, reflecting last year’s net loss, while HL at 25.51 signals healthy earnings.
- ALB has a negative Price-to-Free Cash Flow ratio of -47.57, signaling it consumed more cash than it produced over the last year—an important liquidity warning. In contrast, HL (P/FCF 45.79) indicates positive free cash flow generation.
| Symbol | ALB | HL |
|---|---|---|
| Price-to-Earnings Ratio (P/E, TTM) | -5.82 | 25.51 |
| Forward PEG Ratio (TTM) | 31.25 | 1.91 |
| Price-to-Sales Ratio (P/S, TTM) | 1.30 | 2.41 |
| Price-to-Book Ratio (P/B, TTM) | 0.66 | 1.55 |
| Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (P/FCF, TTM) | -47.57 | 45.79 |
| EV-to-EBITDA (TTM) | -10.79 | 10.81 |
| EV-to-Sales (TTM) | 1.72 | 2.41 |
| EV-to-Free Cash Flow (TTM) | -62.77 | 45.92 |
Dividend Comparison
ALB’s dividend yield of 2.86% is about 287% higher than HL’s 0.74%, underscoring its stronger focus on returning cash to shareholders.
| Symbol | ALB | HL |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield (TTM) | 2.86% | 0.74% |
Financial Strength Metrics Comparison
This section dives into the financial resilience of ALB and HL, spotlighting key metrics like liquidity, leverage, and debt coverage. Check out the standout observations below where notable differences or extremes pop up.
- With negative EBIT (-9.99), ALB cannot cover its interest payments. HL, with an interest coverage of 5.59, meets its interest obligations.
| Symbol | ALB | HL |
|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio (TTM) | 2.11 | 1.43 |
| Quick Ratio (TTM) | 1.26 | 1.16 |
| Debt-to-Equity Ratio (TTM) | 0.36 | 0.02 |
| Debt-to-Assets Ratio (TTM) | 0.21 | 0.01 |
| Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) | -9.99 | 5.59 |