Industrial Materials
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
LITM vs ALB vs SQM vs LAC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Chemicals - Specialty
Chemicals - Specialty
Industrial Materials
LITM 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 | $10M | $23.37B | $13.08B | $1.37B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $5.49B | $4.33B | $0.00 |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-5M | $-233M | $524M | $-241M |
| Gross Margin | — | 18.5% | 27.7% | — |
| Operating Margin | — | 5.6% | 21.1% | — |
| Forward P/E | — | 22.4x | 15.0x | — |
| Total Debt | $0.00 | $3.30B | $4.82B | $23M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $13M | $1.62B | $1.38B | $594M |
LITM vs ALB vs SQM vs LAC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Nov 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Snow Lake Resources… (LITM) | 100 | 2.0 | -98.0% |
| Albemarle Corporati… (ALB) | 100 | 74.4 | -25.6% |
| Sociedad Química y … (SQM) | 100 | 147.1 | +47.1% |
| Lithium Americas Co… (LAC) | 100 | 23.3 | -76.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: LITM vs ALB vs SQM vs LAC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
LITM plays a supporting role in this comparison — it may shine differently against other peers.
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 1.60, 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.
- 464.6% 10Y total return vs LAC's 234.9%
- Beta 1.24, 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 1.42, 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 1.24 vs LITM's 3.12 | |
| Dividends | 0.8% yield, 15-year raise streak, vs SQM's 0.3%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +256.7% vs LITM's -42.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 4.5% ROA vs LAC's -16.6%, ROIC 9.0% vs -7.1% |
LITM 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.
LITM 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 5 of 6 categories
ALB leads 1 • LITM leads 0 • LAC leads 0
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SQM leads this category, winning 3 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 | -$7M | $802M | $917M | -$32M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$5M | -$233M | $524M | -$241M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$10,052 | $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 | +74.3% | — | +34.8% | -21.4% |
Valuation Metrics
SQM leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
On an enterprise value basis, SQM's 15.4x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than ALB's 33.2x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $10M | $23.4B | $13.1B | $1.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | -$3M | $25.1B | $16.5B | $801M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.91x | -34.50x | -64.51x | -26.95x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 22.36x | 15.04x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 33.21x | 15.43x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 4.55x | 2.89x | — |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.22x | 2.39x | 5.02x | 1.20x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 33.76x | 43.19x | — |
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 LAC's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -10.1% | -2.3% | +9.5% | -26.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -8.3% | -1.4% | +4.5% | -16.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -24.2% | +0.6% | +9.0% | -7.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -23.5% | +0.6% | +11.4% | -3.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.34x | 0.93x | 0.02x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$13M | $1.7B | $3.4B | -$571M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $13M | $1.6B | $1.4B | $594M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $0 | $3.3B | $4.8B | $23M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -2316.54x | 1.59x | 5.37x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
SQM leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in SQM five years ago would be worth $19,418 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $124 for LITM. Over the past 12 months, ALB leads with a +256.7% total return vs LITM's -42.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors SQM at 12.0% vs LITM's -62.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -36.2% | +38.1% | +31.4% | +18.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -42.3% | +256.7% | +173.2% | +84.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -94.7% | +9.3% | +40.7% | -55.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -98.8% | +26.8% | +94.2% | -31.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -98.8% | +217.0% | +464.6% | +234.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -62.3% | +3.0% | +12.0% | -23.7% |
Risk & Volatility
SQM leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
SQM is the less volatile stock with a 1.24 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than LITM's 3.12 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. SQM currently trades 93.5% from its 52-week high vs LITM's 28.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 3.12x | 1.60x | 1.24x | 1.42x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $7.43 | $221.00 | $98.00 | $10.52 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.89 | $53.70 | $29.36 | $2.47 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +28.3% | +89.8% | +93.5% | +53.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 45.4 | 53.0 | 61.5 | 69.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 264K | 2.0M | 1.3M | 9.0M |
Analyst Outlook
ALB leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: ALB as "Hold", SQM as "Hold", LAC as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 23.7% upside for LAC (target: $7) vs -17.6% for SQM (target: $76). For income investors, ALB offers the higher dividend yield at 0.82% vs SQM's 0.26%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $190.80 | $75.50 | $7.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 45 | 16 | 15 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.8% | +0.3% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 15 | 0 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.62 | $0.24 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
SQM leads in 5 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). ALB leads in 1 (Analyst Outlook).
LITM vs ALB vs SQM vs LAC: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is LITM 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 Albemarle Corporation (ALB) a "Hold" — based on 45 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 — LITM or ALB or SQM or LAC?
Over the past 5 years, Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.
A. (SQM) delivered a total return of +94. 2%, compared to -98. 8% for Snow Lake Resources Ltd. (LITM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: SQM returned +464. 6% versus LITM's -98. 8%. 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 — LITM 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. 24β versus Snow Lake Resources Ltd. 's 3. 12β — meaning LITM is approximately 152% 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 — LITM 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 — LITM or ALB or SQM or LAC?
Snow Lake Resources Ltd.
(LITM) 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 LITM 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. 0x forward P/E versus 22. 4x for Albemarle Corporation — 7. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for LAC: 23. 7% to $7. 00.
07Which pays a better dividend — LITM or ALB or SQM or LAC?
In this comparison, ALB (0.
8% yield), SQM (0. 3% yield) pay a dividend. LITM, LAC do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
08Is LITM 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, +217. 0% 10Y return). Snow Lake Resources Ltd. (LITM) carries a higher beta of 3. 12 — 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: +217. 0%, LITM: -98. 8%), 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 LITM 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 LITM, 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.