Seek Returns logo

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

Updated on

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

Company Profile

MLM is a standard domestic listing, while SUZ trades as an American Depositary Receipt (ADR), offering U.S. investors access to its foreign-listed shares.

SymbolMLMSUZ
Company NameMartin Marietta Materials, Inc.Suzano S.A.
CountryUnited StatesBrazil
GICS SectorMaterialsMaterials
GICS IndustryConstruction MaterialsPaper & Forest Products
Market Capitalization36.45 billion USD12.21 billion USD
ExchangeNYSENYSE
Listing DateFebruary 17, 1994November 4, 2008
Security TypeCommon StockADR

Historical Performance

This chart compares the performance of MLM and SUZ 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.

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

Historical Performance at a Glance

SymbolMLMSUZ
5-Day Price Return-0.54%2.21%
13-Week Price Return7.05%1.51%
26-Week Price Return16.04%-8.65%
52-Week Price Return11.48%-3.78%
Month-to-Date Return5.15%3.09%
Year-to-Date Return17.04%-12.98%
10-Day Avg. Volume0.36M4.01M
3-Month Avg. Volume0.41M5.47M
3-Month Volatility21.02%23.49%
Beta1.030.47

Profitability

Return on Equity (TTM)

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.

SUZ

20.16%

Paper & Forest Products Industry

Max
6.82%
Q3
5.52%
Median
4.14%
Q1
2.38%
Min
-1.81%

SUZ’s Return on Equity of 20.16% is exceptionally high, placing it well beyond the typical range for the Paper & Forest Products industry. This demonstrates a superior ability to generate profit from shareholder investments, though it could also be inflated by high financial leverage.

MLM vs. SUZ: A comparison of their Return on Equity (TTM) against their respective Construction Materials and Paper & Forest Products industry benchmarks.

Net Profit Margin (TTM)

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.

SUZ

15.26%

Paper & Forest Products Industry

Max
18.06%
Q3
11.46%
Median
3.39%
Q1
1.84%
Min
-2.16%

A Net Profit Margin of 15.26% places SUZ in the upper quartile for the Paper & Forest Products industry, signifying strong profitability and more effective cost management than most of its peers.

MLM vs. SUZ: A comparison of their Net Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Construction Materials and Paper & Forest Products industry benchmarks.

Operating Profit Margin (TTM)

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.

SUZ

26.63%

Paper & Forest Products Industry

Max
31.11%
Q3
16.36%
Median
6.08%
Q1
4.04%
Min
-2.64%

An Operating Profit Margin of 26.63% places SUZ in the upper quartile for the Paper & Forest Products industry. This signals a strong ability to translate revenue into operating profit, outperforming most of its competitors in core business efficiency.

MLM vs. SUZ: A comparison of their Operating Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Construction Materials and Paper & Forest Products industry benchmarks.

Profitability at a Glance

SymbolMLMSUZ
Return on Equity (TTM)11.88%20.16%
Return on Assets (TTM)6.25%4.94%
Net Profit Margin (TTM)16.47%15.26%
Operating Profit Margin (TTM)23.04%26.63%
Gross Profit Margin (TTM)29.44%37.73%

Financial Strength

Current Ratio (MRQ)

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.

SUZ

3.16

Paper & Forest Products Industry

Max
3.03
Q3
2.03
Median
1.26
Q1
1.09
Min
0.99

SUZ’s Current Ratio of 3.16 is exceptionally high, placing it well outside the typical range for the Paper & Forest Products industry. This indicates a very strong liquidity position, though such a high ratio may also suggest that the company is not using its assets efficiently to generate profits.

MLM vs. SUZ: A comparison of their Current Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Construction Materials and Paper & Forest Products industry benchmarks.

Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)

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.

SUZ

2.28

Paper & Forest Products Industry

Max
1.61
Q3
0.82
Median
0.56
Q1
0.27
Min
0.05

With a Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 2.28, SUZ operates with exceptionally high leverage compared to the Paper & Forest Products industry norm. This suggests an aggressive reliance on debt financing, which can magnify returns but also significantly elevates financial risk.

MLM vs. SUZ: A comparison of their Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Construction Materials and Paper & Forest Products industry benchmarks.

Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)

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.

SUZ

0.53

Paper & Forest Products Industry

Max
16.93
Q3
14.16
Median
7.41
Q1
2.72
Min
-0.13

SUZ’s Interest Coverage Ratio of 0.53 is a critical concern. A value below 1.0 means operating earnings are insufficient to cover interest expenses, indicating severe financial strain and high default risk.

MLM vs. SUZ: A comparison of their Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) against their respective Construction Materials and Paper & Forest Products industry benchmarks.

Financial Strength at a Glance

SymbolMLMSUZ
Current Ratio (MRQ)2.353.16
Quick Ratio (MRQ)1.212.47
Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)0.582.28
Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)16.360.53

Growth

Revenue Growth

MLM vs. SUZ: 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

MLM vs. SUZ: 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)

MLM

0.53%

Construction Materials Industry

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

MLM’s Dividend Yield of 0.53% 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.

SUZ

3.79%

Paper & Forest Products Industry

Max
6.30%
Q3
3.72%
Median
2.41%
Q1
1.71%
Min
0.00%

With a Dividend Yield of 3.79%, SUZ offers a more attractive income stream than most of its peers in the Paper & Forest Products industry, signaling a strong commitment to shareholder returns.

MLM vs. SUZ: A comparison of their Dividend Yield (TTM) against their respective Construction Materials and Paper & Forest Products industry benchmarks.

Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)

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.

SUZ

15.16%

Paper & Forest Products Industry

Max
495.87%
Q3
219.88%
Median
83.21%
Q1
24.91%
Min
0.00%

SUZ’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 15.16% is in the lower quartile for the Paper & Forest Products industry. This suggests a conservative dividend policy, with a strategic focus on reinvesting profits for future growth.

MLM vs. SUZ: A comparison of their Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM) against their respective Construction Materials and Paper & Forest Products industry benchmarks.

Dividend at a Glance

SymbolMLMSUZ
Dividend Yield (TTM)0.53%3.79%
Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)17.62%15.16%

Valuation

Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)

MLM

33.15

Construction Materials Industry

Max
49.05
Q3
24.51
Median
12.09
Q1
7.70
Min
4.06

A P/E Ratio of 33.15 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.

SUZ

8.48

Paper & Forest Products Industry

Max
36.56
Q3
23.55
Median
16.47
Q1
13.85
Min
5.22

In the lower quartile for the Paper & Forest Products industry, SUZ’s P/E Ratio of 8.48 suggests the stock may be undervalued compared to its peers, potentially presenting an attractive entry point for investors.

MLM vs. SUZ: A comparison of their Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM) against their respective Construction Materials and Paper & Forest Products industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)

MLM

5.46

Construction Materials Industry

Max
4.03
Q3
2.26
Median
1.31
Q1
0.66
Min
0.19

With a P/S Ratio of 5.46, 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.

SUZ

1.29

Paper & Forest Products Industry

Max
2.15
Q3
1.30
Median
0.80
Q1
0.63
Min
0.30

SUZ’s P/S Ratio of 1.29 aligns with the market consensus for the Paper & Forest Products industry. This suggests its valuation, based on sales, is seen as standard and is on par with its competitors.

MLM vs. SUZ: A comparison of their Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM) against their respective Construction Materials and Paper & Forest Products industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)

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.

SUZ

1.50

Paper & Forest Products Industry

Max
1.90
Q3
1.25
Median
0.87
Q1
0.73
Min
0.25

SUZ’s P/B Ratio of 1.50 is in the upper tier for the Paper & Forest Products 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 vs. SUZ: A comparison of their Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Construction Materials and Paper & Forest Products industry benchmarks.

Valuation at a Glance

SymbolMLMSUZ
Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)33.158.48
Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)5.461.29
Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)3.531.50
Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (TTM)37.3211.53