Industrial Materials
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
LAR vs ALB vs SQM vs LAC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Chemicals - Specialty
Chemicals - Specialty
Industrial Materials
LAR vs ALB vs SQM vs LAC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Industrial Materials | Chemicals - Specialty | Chemicals - Specialty | Industrial Materials |
| Market Cap | $1.90B | $24.00B | $13.05B | $1.35B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $5.49B | $4.33B | $0.00 |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-81M | $-233M | $524M | $-241M |
| Gross Margin | — | 18.5% | 27.7% | — |
| Operating Margin | — | 5.6% | 21.1% | — |
| Forward P/E | 24.9x | 19.4x | 15.6x | — |
| Total Debt | $211M | $3.30B | $4.82B | $23M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $86M | $1.62B | $1.38B | $594M |
LAR vs ALB vs SQM vs LAC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Dec 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lithium Argentina AG (LAR) | 100 | 445.8 | +345.8% |
| Albemarle Corporati… (ALB) | 100 | 236.4 | +136.4% |
| Sociedad Química y … (SQM) | 100 | 251.3 | +151.3% |
| Lithium Americas Co… (LAC) | 100 | 187.5 | +87.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: LAR vs ALB vs SQM vs LAC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
LAR is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +453.6% vs LAC's +77.4%
ALB is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and growth exposure is your priority.
- Dividend streak 15 yrs, beta 1.57, yield 0.8%
- Rev growth -4.4%, EPS growth 48.7%, 3Y rev CAGR -11.1%
- -4.4% revenue growth vs LAC's -6.0%
- 0.8% yield, 15-year raise streak, vs SQM's 0.3%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
SQM carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for long-term compounding and defensive.
- 468.7% 10Y total return vs LAR's 332.6%
- Beta 1.26, yield 0.3%, current ratio 2.51x
- Better valuation composite
- 12.1% margin vs ALB's -4.2%
LAC is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.51, Low D/E 2.4%, current ratio 10.33x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | -4.4% revenue growth vs LAC's -6.0% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 12.1% margin vs ALB's -4.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.26 vs LAR's 1.86 | |
| Dividends | 0.8% yield, 15-year raise streak, vs SQM's 0.3%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +453.6% vs LAC's +77.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 4.5% ROA vs LAC's -16.6%, ROIC 9.0% vs -7.1% |
LAR vs ALB vs SQM vs LAC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
LAR vs ALB vs SQM vs LAC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
SQM leads in 3 of 6 categories
LAR leads 1 • ALB leads 1 • LAC leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SQM leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ALB and LAC operate at a comparable scale, with $5.5B and $0 in trailing revenue. SQM is the more profitable business, keeping 12.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to ALB's -4.2%. On growth, ALB holds the edge at +32.7% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $5.5B | $4.3B | $0 |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$37M | $802M | $917M | -$32M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$81M | -$233M | $524M | -$241M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$33M | $577M | $66M | -$648M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +18.5% | +27.7% | — |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | +5.6% | +21.1% | — |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | -4.2% | +12.1% | — |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | +10.5% | +1.5% | — |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +32.7% | +8.9% | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -38.0% | — | +34.8% | -21.4% |
Valuation Metrics
SQM leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
On an enterprise value basis, SQM's 15.4x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than ALB's 34.0x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.9B | $24.0B | $13.1B | $1.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $2.0B | $25.7B | $16.5B | $780M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -129.78x | -35.39x | -64.36x | -26.52x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 24.94x | 19.37x | 15.60x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 34.04x | 15.40x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 4.67x | 2.88x | — |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.12x | 2.45x | 5.01x | 1.18x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 34.66x | 43.09x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
SQM leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
SQM delivers a 9.5% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $9 in annual profit, vs $-27 for LAC. LAC carries lower financial leverage with a 0.02x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to SQM's 0.93x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ALB scores 6/9 vs LAR's 1/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -9.2% | -2.3% | +9.5% | -26.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -7.2% | -1.4% | +4.5% | -16.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -2.3% | +0.6% | +9.0% | -7.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -3.7% | +0.6% | +11.4% | -3.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.24x | 0.34x | 0.93x | 0.02x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $125M | $1.7B | $3.4B | -$571M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $86M | $1.6B | $1.4B | $594M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $211M | $3.3B | $4.8B | $23M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -2.26x | 1.59x | 5.37x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
LAR leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in LAR five years ago would be worth $43,259 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $7,114 for LAC. Over the past 12 months, LAR leads with a +453.6% total return vs LAC's +77.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors LAR at 62.9% vs LAC's -24.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +95.3% | +41.7% | +32.5% | +16.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +453.6% | +257.1% | +170.0% | +77.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +332.6% | +12.1% | +41.9% | -56.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +332.6% | +32.6% | +94.5% | -28.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +332.6% | +224.7% | +468.7% | +229.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +62.9% | +3.9% | +12.4% | -24.1% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — LAR and SQM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
SQM is the less volatile stock with a 1.26 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than LAR's 1.86 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. LAR currently trades 97.4% from its 52-week high vs LAC's 52.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.86x | 1.57x | 1.26x | 1.51x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $11.99 | $221.00 | $98.00 | $10.52 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.71 | $53.70 | $29.36 | $2.47 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +97.4% | +92.1% | +93.3% | +52.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 74.8 | 56.4 | 57.5 | 61.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 3.3M | 2.0M | 1.3M | 9.1M |
Analyst Outlook
ALB leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: LAR as "Buy", ALB as "Hold", SQM as "Hold", LAC as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 25.7% upside for LAC (target: $7) vs -21.1% for LAR (target: $9). For income investors, ALB offers the higher dividend yield at 0.80% vs SQM's 0.26%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $9.21 | $196.40 | $78.00 | $7.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 2 | 45 | 16 | 15 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.8% | +0.3% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 15 | 0 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.62 | $0.24 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
SQM leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). LAR leads in 1 (Total Returns). 1 tied.
LAR vs ALB vs SQM vs LAC: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is LAR or ALB or SQM or LAC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Albemarle Corporation (ALB) is the stronger pick with -4.
4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -39. 4% for Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S. A. (SQM). Analysts rate Lithium Argentina AG (LAR) a "Buy" — based on 2 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 is the better long-term investment — LAR or ALB or SQM or LAC?
Over the past 5 years, Lithium Argentina AG (LAR) delivered a total return of +332.
6%, compared to -28. 9% for Lithium Americas Corp. (LAC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: SQM returned +468. 7% versus ALB's +224. 7%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
03Which is safer — LAR or ALB or SQM or LAC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.
A. (SQM) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 26β versus Lithium Argentina AG's 1. 86β — meaning LAR is approximately 47% more volatile than SQM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Lithium Americas Corp. (LAC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 2% versus 93% for Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S. A. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — LAR or ALB or SQM or LAC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Albemarle Corporation (ALB) is pulling ahead at -4.
4% versus -39. 4% for Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S. A. (SQM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Albemarle Corporation grew EPS 48. 7% year-over-year, compared to -757. 1% for Lithium Americas Corp.. Over a 3-year CAGR, SQM leads at 16. 5% 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.
05Which has better profit margins — LAR or ALB or SQM or LAC?
Lithium Argentina AG (LAR) is the more profitable company, earning 0.
0% net margin versus -9. 9% for Albemarle Corporation — meaning it keeps 0. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: SQM leads at 23. 5% versus 0. 0% for LAC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — SQM leads at 29. 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.
06Is LAR or ALB or SQM or LAC more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.
A. (SQM) trades at 15. 6x forward P/E versus 24. 9x for Lithium Argentina AG — 9. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for LAC: 25. 7% to $7. 00.
07Which pays a better dividend — LAR or ALB or SQM or LAC?
In this comparison, ALB (0.
8% yield), SQM (0. 3% yield) pay a dividend. LAR, LAC do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
08Is LAR or ALB or SQM or LAC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Albemarle Corporation (ALB) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (0.
8% yield, +224. 7% 10Y return). Lithium Argentina AG (LAR) carries a higher beta of 1. 86 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (ALB: +224. 7%, LAR: +332. 6%), 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.
09What are the main differences between LAR and ALB and SQM and LAC?
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.
ALB pays a dividend while LAR, SQM, LAC do 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.