Industrial Materials
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
GRO vs LIN vs APD vs NTR vs CF
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Chemicals - Specialty
Chemicals - Specialty
Agricultural Inputs
Agricultural Inputs
GRO vs LIN vs APD vs NTR vs CF — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Industrial Materials | Chemicals - Specialty | Chemicals - Specialty | Agricultural Inputs | Agricultural Inputs |
| Market Cap | $141M | $228.85B | $65.68B | $32.89B | $18.24B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $34.66B | $12.46B | $26.90B | $7.41B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-67M | $7.13B | $2.11B | $2.27B | $1.76B |
| Gross Margin | — | 46.0% | 32.0% | 31.1% | 40.4% |
| Operating Margin | — | 28.8% | 18.4% | 13.4% | 35.7% |
| Forward P/E | — | 27.7x | 22.5x | 12.0x | 8.4x |
| Total Debt | $606K | $26.99B | $18.41B | $12.93B | $3.95B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $19M | $5.06B | $1.86B | $700M | $1.98B |
GRO vs LIN vs APD vs NTR vs CF — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Nov 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brazil Potash Corp. (GRO) | 100 | 20.2 | -79.8% |
| Linde plc (LIN) | 100 | 107.1 | +7.1% |
| Air Products and Ch… (APD) | 100 | 88.2 | -11.8% |
| Nutrien Ltd. (NTR) | 100 | 146.5 | +46.5% |
| CF Industries Holdi… (CF) | 100 | 132.4 | +32.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: GRO vs LIN vs APD vs NTR vs CF
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
GRO is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.84, Low D/E 0.4%, current ratio 6.79x
LIN is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding is your priority.
- 375.2% 10Y total return vs CF's 338.1%
- Beta 0.24 vs GRO's 1.84
APD is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 29 yrs, beta 0.45, yield 2.4%
- Beta 0.45, yield 2.4%, current ratio 1.38x
NTR ranks third and is worth considering specifically for dividends.
- 3.2% yield, 8-year raise streak, vs APD's 2.4%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
CF carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and valuation efficiency.
- Rev growth 19.3%, EPS growth 33.1%, 3Y rev CAGR -14.1%
- PEG 0.19 vs LIN's 1.09
- 19.3% revenue growth vs APD's -0.5%
- Lower P/E (8.4x vs 12.0x), PEG 0.19 vs 0.29
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 19.3% revenue growth vs APD's -0.5% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (8.4x vs 12.0x), PEG 0.19 vs 0.29 | |
| Quality / Margins | 23.7% margin vs GRO's 0.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.24 vs GRO's 1.84 | |
| Dividends | 3.2% yield, 8-year raise streak, vs APD's 2.4%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +49.6% vs LIN's +11.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 12.4% ROA vs GRO's -31.6%, ROIC 18.7% vs -24.6% |
GRO vs LIN vs APD vs NTR vs CF — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
GRO vs LIN vs APD vs NTR vs CF — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CF leads in 4 of 6 categories
GRO leads 0 • LIN leads 0 • APD leads 0 • NTR leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CF leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
LIN and GRO operate at a comparable scale, with $34.7B and $0 in trailing revenue. CF is the more profitable business, keeping 23.7% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to NTR's 8.4%. On growth, CF holds the edge at +19.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $34.7B | $12.5B | $26.9B | $7.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$67M | $12.1B | $3.9B | $6.0B | $3.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$67M | $7.1B | $2.1B | $2.3B | $1.8B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$27M | $5.1B | $1.1B | $2.0B | $1.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +46.0% | +32.0% | +31.1% | +40.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | +28.8% | +18.4% | +13.4% | +35.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | +20.6% | +16.9% | +8.4% | +23.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | +14.7% | +8.9% | +7.4% | +21.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +8.2% | +8.8% | +6.8% | +19.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +9.4% | +13.4% | +141.1% | +4.2% | +115.1% |
Valuation Metrics
CF leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 13.2x trailing earnings, CF trades at a 61% valuation discount to LIN's 33.8x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), CF offers better value at 0.30x vs LIN's 1.33x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $141M | $228.8B | $65.7B | $32.9B | $18.2B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $123M | $250.8B | $82.2B | $45.1B | $20.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -2.06x | 33.85x | -166.67x | 14.42x | 13.24x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 27.67x | 22.46x | 12.01x | 8.41x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.33x | — | 0.35x | 0.30x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 19.75x | 119.66x | 7.08x | 6.19x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 6.73x | 5.46x | 1.20x | 2.57x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.70x | 5.82x | 3.79x | 1.31x | 2.48x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 44.97x | — | 16.15x | 10.12x |
Profitability & Efficiency
CF leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CF delivers a 22.3% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $22 in annual profit, vs $-33 for GRO. GRO carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to APD's 1.06x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), NTR scores 8/9 vs APD's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -32.6% | +17.8% | +11.9% | +9.1% | +22.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -31.6% | +8.3% | +5.1% | +4.3% | +12.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -24.6% | +11.3% | -2.0% | +8.0% | +18.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -30.0% | +13.0% | -2.4% | +9.8% | +18.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.00x | 0.68x | 1.06x | 0.51x | 0.51x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$18M | $21.9B | $16.6B | $12.2B | $2.0B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $19M | $5.1B | $1.9B | $700M | $2.0B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $605,605 | $27.0B | $18.4B | $12.9B | $3.9B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -177.94x | 34.52x | 12.00x | 5.44x | 16.31x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CF leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CF five years ago would be worth $23,091 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,954 for GRO. Over the past 12 months, CF leads with a +49.6% total return vs LIN's +11.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CF at 22.6% vs GRO's -42.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +32.7% | +15.5% | +19.2% | +9.1% | +48.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +19.5% | +11.2% | +14.2% | +24.6% | +49.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -80.5% | +39.7% | +7.0% | +16.0% | +84.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -80.5% | +73.9% | +13.2% | +28.1% | +130.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -80.5% | +375.2% | +166.4% | +54.0% | +338.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -42.0% | +11.8% | +2.3% | +5.1% | +22.6% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — APD and CF each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CF is the less volatile stock with a -0.62 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than GRO's 1.84 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. APD currently trades 96.0% from its 52-week high vs GRO's 66.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.84x | 0.24x | 0.45x | -0.07x | -0.62x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $3.99 | $521.28 | $307.29 | $85.36 | $141.96 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.25 | $387.78 | $229.11 | $53.03 | $75.42 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +66.2% | +94.7% | +96.0% | +80.1% | +83.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 39.3 | 51.7 | 55.0 | 48.9 | 47.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 988K | 2.3M | 1.2M | 3.8M | 4.9M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — APD and NTR each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: GRO as "Buy", LIN as "Buy", APD as "Buy", NTR as "Buy", CF as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 51.5% upside for GRO (target: $4) vs -8.3% for CF (target: $109). For income investors, NTR offers the higher dividend yield at 3.25% vs LIN's 1.21%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $4.00 | $539.71 | $312.78 | $84.25 | $108.89 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 1 | 28 | 42 | 33 | 41 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +1.2% | +2.4% | +3.2% | +1.7% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 6 | 29 | 8 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $6.00 | $7.11 | $2.22 | $2.01 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +2.0% | 0.0% | +1.7% | 0.0% |
CF leads in 4 of 6 categories — strongest in Income & Cash Flow and Valuation Metrics. 2 categories are tied.
GRO vs LIN vs APD vs NTR vs CF: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GRO or LIN or APD or NTR or CF a better buy right now?
For growth investors, CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
(CF) is the stronger pick with 19. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -0. 5% for Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (APD). CF Industries Holdings, Inc. (CF) offers the better valuation at 13. 2x trailing P/E (8. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Brazil Potash Corp. (GRO) a "Buy" — based on 1 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which has the better valuation — GRO or LIN or APD or NTR or CF?
On trailing P/E, CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
(CF) is the cheapest at 13. 2x versus Linde plc at 33. 8x. On forward P/E, CF Industries Holdings, Inc. is actually cheaper at 8. 4x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: CF Industries Holdings, Inc. wins at 0. 19x versus Linde plc's 1. 09x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — GRO or LIN or APD or NTR or CF?
Over the past 5 years, CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
(CF) delivered a total return of +130. 9%, compared to -80. 5% for Brazil Potash Corp. (GRO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: LIN returned +375. 2% versus GRO's -80. 5%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — GRO or LIN or APD or NTR or CF?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
(CF) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 62β versus Brazil Potash Corp. 's 1. 84β — meaning GRO is approximately -395% more volatile than CF relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Brazil Potash Corp. (GRO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 106% for Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — GRO or LIN or APD or NTR or CF?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
(CF) is pulling ahead at 19. 3% versus -0. 5% for Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (APD). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Nutrien Ltd. grew EPS 248. 5% year-over-year, compared to -276. 5% for Brazil Potash Corp.. Over a 3-year CAGR, LIN leads at 0. 6% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
06Which has better profit margins — GRO or LIN or APD or NTR or CF?
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
(CF) is the more profitable company, earning 20. 5% net margin versus -3. 3% for Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. — meaning it keeps 20. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CF leads at 33. 4% versus -7. 3% for APD. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — LIN leads at 43. 3%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
07Is GRO or LIN or APD or NTR or CF more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, CF Industries Holdings, Inc. (CF) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 19x versus Linde plc's 1. 09x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, CF Industries Holdings, Inc. (CF) trades at 8. 4x forward P/E versus 27. 7x for Linde plc — 19. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for GRO: 51. 5% to $4. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — GRO or LIN or APD or NTR or CF?
In this comparison, NTR (3.
2% yield), APD (2. 4% yield), CF (1. 7% yield), LIN (1. 2% yield) pay a dividend. GRO does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is GRO or LIN or APD or NTR or CF better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
(CF) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 62), 1. 7% yield, +338. 1% 10Y return). Brazil Potash Corp. (GRO) carries a higher beta of 1. 84 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (CF: +338. 1%, GRO: -80. 5%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
10What are the main differences between GRO and LIN and APD and NTR and CF?
Both stocks operate in the Basic Materials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: GRO is a small-cap quality compounder stock; LIN is a large-cap quality compounder stock; APD is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; NTR is a mid-cap deep-value stock; CF is a mid-cap high-growth stock. LIN, APD, NTR, CF pay a dividend while GRO does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.