ALB vs. KGC: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison
UpdatedHere’s a clear look at ALB and KGC, 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
KGC stands out with 18.01 billion USD in market value—about 2.71× ALB’s market cap of 6.64 billion USD.
ALB’s beta of 1.71 points to much larger expected swings compared to KGC’s calmer 0.79, suggesting both higher upside and downside potential.
| Symbol | ALB | KGC |
|---|---|---|
| Company Name | Albemarle Corporation | Kinross Gold Corporation |
| Country | US | CA |
| Sector | Basic Materials | Basic Materials |
| Industry | Chemicals - Specialty | Gold |
| CEO | Mr. Jerry Kent Masters Jr. | Mr. J. Paul Rollinson |
| Price | 56.44 USD | 14.64 USD |
| Market Cap | 6.64 billion USD | 18.01 billion USD |
| Beta | 1.71 | 0.79 |
| Exchange | NYSE | NYSE |
| IPO Date | February 22, 1994 | March 17, 1981 |
| ADR | No | No |
Performance Comparison
This chart compares the performance of ALB and KGC 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 KGC 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 KGC at 14.88 signals healthy earnings.
- KGC shows a negative forward PEG of -1.78, signaling expected earnings contraction, while ALB at 31.25 maintains analysts’ projections for stable or improved profits.
- 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, KGC (P/FCF 11.29) indicates positive free cash flow generation.
| Symbol | ALB | KGC |
|---|---|---|
| Price-to-Earnings Ratio (P/E, TTM) | -5.82 | 14.88 |
| Forward PEG Ratio (TTM) | 31.25 | -1.78 |
| Price-to-Sales Ratio (P/S, TTM) | 1.30 | 3.24 |
| Price-to-Book Ratio (P/B, TTM) | 0.66 | 2.50 |
| Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (P/FCF, TTM) | -47.57 | 11.29 |
| EV-to-EBITDA (TTM) | -10.79 | 6.05 |
| EV-to-Sales (TTM) | 1.72 | 3.33 |
| EV-to-Free Cash Flow (TTM) | -62.77 | 11.62 |
Dividend Comparison
ALB’s dividend yield of 2.86% is about 249% higher than KGC’s 0.82%, underscoring its stronger focus on returning cash to shareholders.
| Symbol | ALB | KGC |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield (TTM) | 2.86% | 0.82% |
Financial Strength Metrics Comparison
This section dives into the financial resilience of ALB and KGC, 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. KGC, with an interest coverage of 31.23, meets its interest obligations.
| Symbol | ALB | KGC |
|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio (TTM) | 2.11 | 2.83 |
| Quick Ratio (TTM) | 1.26 | 1.22 |
| Debt-to-Equity Ratio (TTM) | 0.36 | 0.17 |
| Debt-to-Assets Ratio (TTM) | 0.21 | 0.11 |
| Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) | -9.99 | 31.23 |