Chemicals
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
LXU vs CF vs CVR vs UAN vs NTR
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Agricultural Inputs
Manufacturing - Tools & Accessories
Agricultural Inputs
Agricultural Inputs
LXU vs CF vs CVR vs UAN vs NTR — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Chemicals | Agricultural Inputs | Manufacturing - Tools & Accessories | Agricultural Inputs | Agricultural Inputs |
| Market Cap | $975M | $18.24B | $11M | $1.35B | $32.89B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $641M | $7.41B | $28M | $643M | $26.90B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $46M | $1.76B | $-1M | $121M | $2.27B |
| Gross Margin | 19.6% | 40.4% | 14.8% | 25.3% | 31.1% |
| Operating Margin | 12.5% | 35.7% | -5.5% | 23.6% | 13.4% |
| Forward P/E | 12.6x | 8.4x | — | 13.6x | 12.0x |
| Total Debt | $489M | $3.95B | $921K | $593M | $12.93B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $20M | $1.98B | $2M | $69M | $700M |
LXU vs CF vs CVR vs UAN vs NTR — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| LSB Industries, Inc. (LXU) | 100 | 1633.4 | +1533.4% |
| CF Industries Holdi… (CF) | 100 | 404.3 | +304.3% |
| Chicago Rivet & Mac… (CVR) | 100 | 55.6 | -44.4% |
| CVR Partners, LP (UAN) | 100 | 1394.7 | +1294.7% |
| Nutrien Ltd. (NTR) | 100 | 201.1 | +101.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: LXU vs CF vs CVR vs UAN vs NTR
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
LXU is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- Rev growth 17.8%, EPS growth 225.9%, 3Y rev CAGR -12.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.43, Low D/E 94.1%, current ratio 2.78x
- Beta 0.43 vs CVR's 0.97
- +104.7% vs CVR's +3.7%
CF carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.19 vs NTR's 0.29
- 19.3% revenue growth vs CVR's 3.3%
- Lower P/E (8.4x vs 12.0x), PEG 0.19 vs 0.29
- 23.7% margin vs CVR's -3.9%
CVR is the clearest fit if your priority is defensive.
- Beta 0.97, yield 1.1%, current ratio 5.21x
UAN ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta -0.51, yield 9.4%
- 156.7% 10Y total return vs CF's 338.1%
- 9.4% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs NTR's 3.2%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
Among these 5 stocks, NTR doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 19.3% revenue growth vs CVR's 3.3% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (8.4x vs 12.0x), PEG 0.19 vs 0.29 | |
| Quality / Margins | 23.7% margin vs CVR's -3.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.43 vs CVR's 0.97 | |
| Dividends | 9.4% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs NTR's 3.2%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +104.7% vs CVR's +3.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 12.4% ROA vs CVR's -4.6%, ROIC 18.7% vs -6.4% |
LXU vs CF vs CVR vs UAN vs NTR — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
LXU vs CF vs CVR vs UAN vs NTR — 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
LXU leads 0 • CVR leads 0 • UAN leads 0 • NTR leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CF leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NTR is the larger business by revenue, generating $26.9B annually — 964.5x CVR's $28M. CF is the more profitable business, keeping 23.7% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CVR's -3.9%. On growth, CVR holds the edge at +45.9% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $641M | $7.4B | $28M | $643M | $26.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $163M | $3.5B | -$318,590 | $236M | $6.0B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $46M | $1.8B | -$1M | $121M | $2.3B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $161M | $1.6B | -$2M | $112M | $2.0B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +19.6% | +40.4% | +14.8% | +25.3% | +31.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +12.5% | +35.7% | -5.5% | +23.6% | +13.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +7.2% | +23.7% | -3.9% | +18.9% | +8.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +25.2% | +21.9% | -5.6% | +17.4% | +7.4% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +18.2% | +19.4% | +45.9% | +26.0% | +6.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +12.8% | +115.1% | +67.9% | +84.4% | +4.2% |
Valuation Metrics
CF leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 13.2x trailing earnings, CF trades at a 67% valuation discount to LXU's 39.9x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), CF offers better value at 0.30x vs NTR's 0.35x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $975M | $18.2B | $11M | $1.3B | $32.9B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.4B | $20.2B | $10M | $1.9B | $45.1B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 39.91x | 13.24x | -9.73x | 13.65x | 14.42x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 12.59x | 8.41x | — | — | 12.01x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.30x | — | — | 0.35x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 9.98x | 6.19x | — | 8.84x | 7.08x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.58x | 2.57x | 0.38x | 2.22x | 1.20x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.89x | 2.48x | 0.56x | 5.07x | 1.31x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 53.98x | 10.12x | — | 13.62x | 16.15x |
Profitability & Efficiency
CF leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
UAN delivers a 40.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $40 in annual profit, vs $-5 for CVR. CVR carries lower financial leverage with a 0.05x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to UAN's 2.23x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), LXU scores 8/9 vs CVR's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +8.9% | +22.3% | -5.5% | +40.1% | +9.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +4.0% | +12.4% | -4.6% | +12.1% | +4.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +4.7% | +18.7% | -6.4% | +12.2% | +8.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +5.9% | +18.3% | -7.3% | +14.6% | +9.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.94x | 0.51x | 0.05x | 2.23x | 0.51x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $470M | $2.0B | -$797,274 | $524M | $12.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $20M | $2.0B | $2M | $69M | $700M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $489M | $3.9B | $920,963 | $593M | $12.9B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.66x | 16.31x | — | 6.00x | 5.44x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CF leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in UAN five years ago would be worth $34,062 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $5,180 for CVR. Over the past 12 months, LXU leads with a +104.7% total return vs CVR's +3.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CF at 22.6% vs CVR's -23.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +58.3% | +48.8% | -21.9% | +25.8% | +9.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +104.7% | +49.6% | +3.7% | +66.9% | +24.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +41.6% | +84.1% | -54.9% | +56.3% | +16.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +189.7% | +130.9% | -48.2% | +240.6% | +28.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +75.0% | +338.1% | -27.5% | +156.7% | +54.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +12.3% | +22.6% | -23.3% | +16.0% | +5.1% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CF and UAN 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 CVR's 0.97 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. UAN currently trades 91.3% from its 52-week high vs CVR's 72.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.43x | -0.62x | 0.97x | -0.51x | -0.07x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $17.21 | $141.96 | $15.00 | $139.50 | $85.36 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $6.46 | $75.42 | $8.15 | $80.01 | $53.03 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +78.8% | +83.6% | +72.7% | +91.3% | +80.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 46.9 | 47.0 | 49.4 | 52.2 | 48.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.8M | 4.9M | 3K | 100K | 3.8M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — UAN and NTR each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: LXU as "Buy", CF as "Buy", UAN as "Hold", NTR as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 23.2% upside for NTR (target: $84) vs -23.5% for LXU (target: $10). For income investors, UAN offers the higher dividend yield at 9.36% vs CVR's 1.10%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | — | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $10.38 | $108.89 | — | — | $84.25 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 11 | 41 | — | 6 | 33 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +1.7% | +1.1% | +9.4% | +3.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 8 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $2.01 | $0.12 | $11.92 | $2.22 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +1.7% |
CF leads in 4 of 6 categories — strongest in Income & Cash Flow and Valuation Metrics. 2 categories are tied.
LXU vs CF vs CVR vs UAN vs NTR: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is LXU or CF or CVR or UAN or NTR 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 3. 3% for Chicago Rivet & Machine Co. (CVR). 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 LSB Industries, Inc. (LXU) a "Buy" — based on 11 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 — LXU or CF or CVR or UAN or NTR?
On trailing P/E, CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
(CF) is the cheapest at 13. 2x versus LSB Industries, Inc. at 39. 9x. 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 Nutrien Ltd. 's 0. 29x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — LXU or CF or CVR or UAN or NTR?
Over the past 5 years, CVR Partners, LP (UAN) delivered a total return of +240.
6%, compared to -48. 2% for Chicago Rivet & Machine Co. (CVR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CF returned +338. 1% versus CVR's -27. 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 — LXU or CF or CVR or UAN or NTR?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
(CF) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 62β versus Chicago Rivet & Machine Co. 's 0. 97β — meaning CVR is approximately -257% more volatile than CF relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Chicago Rivet & Machine Co. (CVR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 5% versus 2% for CVR Partners, LP — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — LXU or CF or CVR or UAN or NTR?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
(CF) is pulling ahead at 19. 3% versus 3. 3% for Chicago Rivet & Machine Co. (CVR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Nutrien Ltd. grew EPS 248. 5% year-over-year, compared to 33. 1% for CF Industries Holdings, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CVR leads at -6. 1% 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 — LXU or CF or CVR or UAN or NTR?
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
(CF) is the more profitable company, earning 20. 5% net margin versus -3. 9% for Chicago Rivet & Machine Co. — 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 -5. 5% for CVR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CF leads at 38. 5%, 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 LXU or CF or CVR or UAN or NTR 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 Nutrien Ltd. 's 0. 29x. 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 12. 6x for LSB Industries, Inc. — 4. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NTR: 23. 2% to $84. 25.
08Which pays a better dividend — LXU or CF or CVR or UAN or NTR?
In this comparison, UAN (9.
4% yield), NTR (3. 2% yield), CF (1. 7% yield), CVR (1. 1% yield) pay a dividend. LXU does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is LXU or CF or CVR or UAN or NTR 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). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CF: +338. 1%, CVR: -27. 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 LXU and CF and CVR and UAN and NTR?
These companies operate in different sectors (LXU (Basic Materials) and CF (Basic Materials) and CVR (Industrials) and UAN (Basic Materials) and NTR (Basic Materials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: LXU is a small-cap high-growth stock; CF is a mid-cap high-growth stock; CVR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; UAN is a small-cap high-growth stock; NTR is a mid-cap deep-value stock. CF, CVR, UAN, NTR pay a dividend while LXU 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.