Seek Returns logo

CF vs. MLM: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison

Updated on

Here’s a clear look at CF and MLM, comparing key factors like historical performance, profitability, financial strength, growth, dividend, and valuation.

Company Profile

SymbolCFMLM
Company NameCF Industries Holdings, Inc.Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
CountryUnited StatesUnited States
GICS SectorMaterialsMaterials
GICS IndustryChemicalsConstruction Materials
Market Capitalization14.00 billion USD37.39 billion USD
ExchangeNYSENYSE
Listing DateAugust 11, 2005February 17, 1994
Security TypeCommon StockCommon Stock

Historical Performance

This chart compares the performance of CF and MLM by tracking the growth of an initial $10,000 investment in each. Use the tabs to select the desired time period. Data is adjusted for dividends and splits.

CF vs. MLM: Growth of a $10,000 investment over the past one year.

Historical Performance at a Glance

SymbolCFMLM
5-Day Price Return4.26%3.30%
13-Week Price Return2.41%12.12%
26-Week Price Return2.73%13.68%
52-Week Price Return6.89%18.09%
Month-to-Date Return-6.91%7.86%
Year-to-Date Return1.29%20.05%
10-Day Avg. Volume3.61M0.54M
3-Month Avg. Volume2.86M0.44M
3-Month Volatility35.45%21.85%
Beta0.931.03

Profitability

Return on Equity (TTM)

CF

26.14%

Chemicals Industry

Max
26.17%
Q3
13.48%
Median
8.13%
Q1
2.52%
Min
-11.86%

In the upper quartile for the Chemicals industry, CF’s Return on Equity of 26.14% signals a highly effective use of shareholder capital to drive profitability compared to most of its peers.

MLM

11.88%

Construction Materials Industry

Max
24.78%
Q3
14.96%
Median
10.37%
Q1
4.14%
Min
-2.94%

MLM’s Return on Equity of 11.88% is on par with the norm for the Construction Materials industry, indicating its profitability relative to shareholder equity is typical for the sector.

CF vs. MLM: A comparison of their Return on Equity (TTM) against their respective Chemicals and Construction Materials industry benchmarks.

Net Profit Margin (TTM)

CF

20.20%

Chemicals Industry

Max
21.80%
Q3
9.57%
Median
4.44%
Q1
1.14%
Min
-11.30%

A Net Profit Margin of 20.20% places CF in the upper quartile for the Chemicals industry, signifying strong profitability and more effective cost management than most of its peers.

MLM

16.47%

Construction Materials Industry

Max
28.01%
Q3
15.18%
Median
9.09%
Q1
3.32%
Min
-4.30%

A Net Profit Margin of 16.47% places MLM in the upper quartile for the Construction Materials industry, signifying strong profitability and more effective cost management than most of its peers.

CF vs. MLM: A comparison of their Net Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Chemicals and Construction Materials industry benchmarks.

Operating Profit Margin (TTM)

CF

29.60%

Chemicals Industry

Max
27.33%
Q3
13.97%
Median
8.08%
Q1
4.46%
Min
-8.10%

CF’s Operating Profit Margin of 29.60% is exceptionally high, placing it well above the typical range for the Chemicals industry. This demonstrates outstanding efficiency in managing its core operations, which can be a result of strong pricing power or superior cost control.

MLM

23.04%

Construction Materials Industry

Max
31.67%
Q3
18.49%
Median
11.57%
Q1
7.82%
Min
-1.44%

An Operating Profit Margin of 23.04% places MLM in the upper quartile for the Construction Materials industry. This signals a strong ability to translate revenue into operating profit, outperforming most of its competitors in core business efficiency.

CF vs. MLM: A comparison of their Operating Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Chemicals and Construction Materials industry benchmarks.

Profitability at a Glance

SymbolCFMLM
Return on Equity (TTM)26.14%11.88%
Return on Assets (TTM)9.58%6.25%
Net Profit Margin (TTM)20.20%16.47%
Operating Profit Margin (TTM)29.60%23.04%
Gross Profit Margin (TTM)35.60%29.44%

Financial Strength

Current Ratio (MRQ)

CF

3.22

Chemicals Industry

Max
3.38
Q3
2.23
Median
1.73
Q1
1.39
Min
0.55

CF’s Current Ratio of 3.22 is in the upper quartile for the Chemicals industry. This signifies a strong liquidity position, suggesting the company is well-equipped to cover its immediate liabilities compared to its peers.

MLM

2.35

Construction Materials Industry

Max
5.14
Q3
2.89
Median
1.92
Q1
1.25
Min
0.79

MLM’s Current Ratio of 2.35 aligns with the median group of the Construction Materials industry, indicating that its short-term liquidity is in line with its sector peers.

CF vs. MLM: A comparison of their Current Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Chemicals and Construction Materials industry benchmarks.

Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)

CF

0.60

Chemicals Industry

Max
1.65
Q3
0.94
Median
0.65
Q1
0.41
Min
0.00

CF’s Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 0.60 is typical for the Chemicals industry, indicating its use of leverage is in line with the sector norm. This suggests a balanced approach to its capital structure.

MLM

0.58

Construction Materials Industry

Max
0.99
Q3
0.72
Median
0.55
Q1
0.30
Min
0.00

MLM’s Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 0.58 is typical for the Construction Materials industry, indicating its use of leverage is in line with the sector norm. This suggests a balanced approach to its capital structure.

CF vs. MLM: A comparison of their Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Chemicals and Construction Materials industry benchmarks.

Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)

CF

26.60

Chemicals Industry

Max
56.43
Q3
26.33
Median
9.38
Q1
3.10
Min
-9.39

CF’s Interest Coverage Ratio of 26.60 is in the upper quartile for the Chemicals industry, signifying a strong and healthy capacity to meet its interest payments from operating profits.

MLM

16.36

Construction Materials Industry

Max
54.89
Q3
34.04
Median
7.92
Q1
4.28
Min
-6.24

MLM’s Interest Coverage Ratio of 16.36 is positioned comfortably within the norm for the Construction Materials industry, indicating a standard and healthy capacity to cover its interest payments.

CF vs. MLM: A comparison of their Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) against their respective Chemicals and Construction Materials industry benchmarks.

Financial Strength at a Glance

SymbolCFMLM
Current Ratio (MRQ)3.222.35
Quick Ratio (MRQ)2.781.21
Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)0.600.58
Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)26.6016.36

Growth

Revenue Growth

CF vs. MLM: A side-by-side comparison of their Revenue Growth for the MRQ (YoY), TTM (YoY), 3-Year CAGR, and 5-Year CAGR periods.

EPS Growth

CF vs. MLM: A side-by-side comparison of their EPS Growth for the MRQ (YoY), TTM (YoY), 3-Year CAGR, and 5-Year CAGR periods.

Dividend

Dividend Yield (TTM)

CF

2.51%

Chemicals Industry

Max
6.56%
Q3
4.04%
Median
2.47%
Q1
1.45%
Min
0.00%

CF’s Dividend Yield of 2.51% is consistent with its peers in the Chemicals industry, providing a dividend return that is standard for its sector.

MLM

0.52%

Construction Materials Industry

Max
5.91%
Q3
4.64%
Median
2.57%
Q1
1.11%
Min
0.00%

MLM’s Dividend Yield of 0.52% is in the lower quartile for the Construction Materials industry. This suggests the company’s strategy likely favors retaining earnings for growth over providing a high dividend income.

CF vs. MLM: A comparison of their Dividend Yield (TTM) against their respective Chemicals and Construction Materials industry benchmarks.

Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)

CF

26.34%

Chemicals Industry

Max
181.25%
Q3
95.01%
Median
53.52%
Q1
26.59%
Min
0.00%

CF’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 26.34% is in the lower quartile for the Chemicals industry. This suggests a conservative dividend policy, with a strategic focus on reinvesting profits for future growth.

MLM

17.62%

Construction Materials Industry

Max
174.17%
Q3
91.80%
Median
44.42%
Q1
23.07%
Min
0.00%

MLM’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 17.62% is in the lower quartile for the Construction Materials industry. This suggests a conservative dividend policy, with a strategic focus on reinvesting profits for future growth.

CF vs. MLM: A comparison of their Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM) against their respective Chemicals and Construction Materials industry benchmarks.

Dividend at a Glance

SymbolCFMLM
Dividend Yield (TTM)2.51%0.52%
Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)26.34%17.62%

Valuation

Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)

CF

10.49

Chemicals Industry

Max
42.94
Q3
29.77
Median
20.37
Q1
14.27
Min
6.19

In the lower quartile for the Chemicals industry, CF’s P/E Ratio of 10.49 suggests the stock may be undervalued compared to its peers, potentially presenting an attractive entry point for investors.

MLM

33.80

Construction Materials Industry

Max
49.05
Q3
24.51
Median
12.09
Q1
7.70
Min
4.06

A P/E Ratio of 33.80 places MLM in the upper quartile for the Construction Materials industry. This high valuation relative to peers suggests the market holds elevated expectations for the company’s future growth.

CF vs. MLM: A comparison of their Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM) against their respective Chemicals and Construction Materials industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)

CF

2.12

Chemicals Industry

Max
4.36
Q3
2.23
Median
1.01
Q1
0.55
Min
0.16

CF’s P/S Ratio of 2.12 aligns with the market consensus for the Chemicals industry. This suggests its valuation, based on sales, is seen as standard and is on par with its competitors.

MLM

5.57

Construction Materials Industry

Max
4.03
Q3
2.26
Median
1.31
Q1
0.66
Min
0.19

With a P/S Ratio of 5.57, MLM trades at a valuation that eclipses even the highest in the Construction Materials industry. This implies the market has priced in exceptionally optimistic scenarios for future revenue growth, posing considerable valuation risk.

CF vs. MLM: A comparison of their Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM) against their respective Chemicals and Construction Materials industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)

CF

3.00

Chemicals Industry

Max
4.92
Q3
2.56
Median
1.54
Q1
0.97
Min
0.30

CF’s P/B Ratio of 3.00 is in the upper tier for the Chemicals industry. This indicates that investors are paying a premium relative to the company’s net assets, a valuation that hinges on its ability to generate superior profits.

MLM

3.53

Construction Materials Industry

Max
3.19
Q3
1.80
Median
1.08
Q1
0.72
Min
0.11

At 3.53, MLM’s P/B Ratio is at an extreme premium to the Construction Materials industry. This signifies that the market’s valuation is heavily reliant on future potential rather than its current net asset value, which can be a high-risk proposition.

CF vs. MLM: A comparison of their Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Chemicals and Construction Materials industry benchmarks.

Valuation at a Glance

SymbolCFMLM
Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)10.4933.80
Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)2.125.57
Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)3.003.53
Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (TTM)7.6438.05