Industrial Materials
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
LZM vs LIN vs JPM vs ALB vs BAC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Chemicals - Specialty
Banks - Diversified
Chemicals - Specialty
Banks - Diversified
LZM vs LIN vs JPM vs ALB vs BAC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Industrial Materials | Chemicals - Specialty | Banks - Diversified | Chemicals - Specialty | Banks - Diversified |
| Market Cap | $353M | $242.62B | $896.00B | $20.10B | $422.78B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1M | $34.66B | $280.33B | $5.49B | $191.57B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-60M | $7.13B | $57.05B | $-233M | $30.51B |
| Gross Margin | -51.3% | 46.0% | 60.0% | 18.5% | 56.1% |
| Operating Margin | -55.8% | 28.8% | 25.9% | 5.6% | 19.7% |
| Forward P/E | — | 29.3x | 14.4x | 14.0x | 12.6x |
| Total Debt | $58M | $26.99B | $942.38B | $3.30B | $365.90B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $20M | $5.06B | $343.34B | $1.62B | $231.84B |
LZM vs LIN vs JPM vs ALB vs BAC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Dec 21 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lifezone Metals Lim… (LZM) | 100 | 39.7 | -60.3% |
| Linde plc (LIN) | 100 | 151.1 | +51.1% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) | 100 | 202.5 | +102.5% |
| Albemarle Corporati… (ALB) | 100 | 72.9 | -27.1% |
| Bank of America Cor… (BAC) | 100 | 125.9 | +25.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: LZM vs LIN vs JPM vs ALB vs BAC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
LZM is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 6.5%, EPS growth 71.2%, 3Y rev CAGR -28.8%
- 6.5% revenue growth vs ALB's -4.4%
LIN carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 34 yrs, beta 0.20, yield 1.1%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.20, Low D/E 67.9%, current ratio 0.88x
- Beta 0.20, yield 1.1%, current ratio 0.88x
- 20.6% margin vs LZM's -50.0%
JPM ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding and valuation efficiency.
- 465.8% 10Y total return vs LIN's 402.9%
- PEG 0.81 vs LIN's 1.15
- NIM 2.2% vs BAC's 1.8%
- Better valuation composite
ALB is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +176.0% vs LZM's -5.1%
BAC is the clearest fit if your priority is dividends.
- 2.3% yield, 12-year raise streak, vs LIN's 1.1%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 6.5% revenue growth vs ALB's -4.4% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 20.6% margin vs LZM's -50.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.20 vs LZM's 2.57, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.3% yield, 12-year raise streak, vs LIN's 1.1%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +176.0% vs LZM's -5.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 8.3% ROA vs LZM's -36.2%, ROIC 11.3% vs -13.1% |
LZM vs LIN vs JPM vs ALB vs BAC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
LZM vs LIN vs JPM vs ALB vs BAC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
LIN leads in 2 of 6 categories
BAC leads 1 • JPM leads 1 • LZM leads 0 • ALB leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — LZM and LIN and JPM each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
JPM is the larger business by revenue, generating $280.3B annually — 234085.8x LZM's $1M. LIN is the more profitable business, keeping 20.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to LZM's -50.0%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1M | $34.7B | $280.3B | $5.5B | $191.6B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$64M | $12.1B | $81.4B | $802M | $40.0B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$60M | $7.1B | $57.0B | -$233M | $30.5B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$66M | $5.1B | $100.9B | $577M | $12.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | -51.3% | +46.0% | +60.0% | +18.5% | +56.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -55.8% | +28.8% | +25.9% | +5.6% | +19.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -50.0% | +20.6% | +20.4% | -4.2% | +15.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -55.3% | +14.7% | +36.0% | +10.5% | +6.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +7.1% | +8.2% | — | +32.7% | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +56.8% | +13.4% | +16.0% | — | +18.3% |
Valuation Metrics
BAC leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 14.7x trailing earnings, BAC trades at a 59% valuation discount to LIN's 35.9x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), JPM offers better value at 0.90x vs LIN's 1.41x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $353M | $242.6B | $896.0B | $20.1B | $422.8B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $392M | $264.6B | $1.50T | $21.8B | $556.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -23.12x | 35.89x | 16.00x | -29.64x | 14.66x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 29.25x | 14.40x | 13.98x | 12.56x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.41x | 0.90x | — | 0.95x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 20.83x | 18.36x | 28.87x | 13.92x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 334.25x | 7.14x | 3.20x | 3.91x | 2.21x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 4.31x | 6.17x | 2.47x | 2.05x | 1.39x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 47.68x | 8.88x | 29.02x | 33.52x |
Profitability & Efficiency
LIN leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
LIN delivers a 17.8% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $18 in annual profit, vs $-61 for LZM. ALB carries lower financial leverage with a 0.34x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to JPM's 2.60x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), BAC scores 7/9 vs LZM's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -60.9% | +17.8% | +15.9% | -2.3% | +10.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -36.2% | +8.3% | +1.3% | -1.4% | +0.9% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -13.1% | +11.3% | +4.5% | +0.6% | +3.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -16.8% | +13.0% | +8.9% | +0.6% | +4.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.80x | 0.68x | 2.60x | 0.34x | 1.21x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $38M | $21.9B | $599.0B | $1.7B | $134.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $20M | $5.1B | $343.3B | $1.6B | $231.8B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $58M | $27.0B | $942.4B | $3.3B | $365.9B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -4.30x | 34.52x | 0.74x | 1.59x | 0.48x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
JPM leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in JPM five years ago would be worth $21,820 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,986 for LZM. Over the past 12 months, ALB leads with a +176.0% total return vs LZM's -5.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors JPM at 33.6% vs LZM's -28.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -10.3% | +22.8% | -0.5% | +19.0% | +1.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -5.1% | +12.6% | +21.8% | +176.0% | +28.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -63.3% | +49.4% | +138.2% | -19.6% | +103.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -60.1% | +89.1% | +118.2% | +6.0% | +47.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -60.1% | +402.9% | +465.8% | +137.7% | +368.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -28.4% | +14.3% | +33.6% | -7.0% | +26.6% |
Risk & Volatility
LIN leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
LIN is the less volatile stock with a 0.20 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than LZM's 2.57 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. LIN currently trades 99.6% from its 52-week high vs LZM's 61.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.57x | 0.20x | 0.94x | 1.69x | 0.86x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $6.40 | $525.82 | $337.25 | $221.00 | $57.55 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $3.07 | $387.78 | $262.71 | $55.90 | $43.66 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +61.4% | +99.6% | +95.1% | +77.1% | +97.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 37.8 | 56.9 | 59.1 | 40.5 | 68.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 757K | 2.0M | 7.0M | 2.0M | 31.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — LIN and BAC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: LZM as "Buy", LIN as "Buy", JPM as "Buy", ALB as "Hold", BAC as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 78.1% upside for LZM (target: $7) vs 5.9% for JPM (target: $340). For income investors, BAC offers the higher dividend yield at 2.26% vs ALB's 0.95%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $7.00 | $562.14 | $339.75 | $209.75 | $61.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 2 | 28 | 61 | 45 | 54 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +1.1% | +1.9% | +0.9% | +2.3% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 34 | 15 | 32 | 12 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $6.00 | $5.95 | $1.62 | $1.27 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +1.9% | +3.9% | 0.0% | +5.1% |
LIN leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Risk & Volatility). BAC leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
LZM vs LIN vs JPM vs ALB vs BAC: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is LZM or LIN or JPM or ALB or BAC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Lifezone Metals Limited (LZM) is the stronger pick with 652.
2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -4. 4% for Albemarle Corporation (ALB). Bank of America Corporation (BAC) offers the better valuation at 14. 7x trailing P/E (12. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Lifezone Metals Limited (LZM) 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 has the better valuation — LZM or LIN or JPM or ALB or BAC?
On trailing P/E, Bank of America Corporation (BAC) is the cheapest at 14.
7x versus Linde plc at 35. 9x. On forward P/E, Bank of America Corporation is actually cheaper at 12. 6x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: JPMorgan Chase & Co. wins at 0. 81x versus Linde plc's 1. 15x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — LZM or LIN or JPM or ALB or BAC?
Over the past 5 years, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) delivered a total return of +118. 2%, compared to -60. 1% for Lifezone Metals Limited (LZM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: JPM returned +465. 8% versus LZM's -60. 1%. 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 — LZM or LIN or JPM or ALB or BAC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Linde plc (LIN) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
20β versus Lifezone Metals Limited's 2. 57β — meaning LZM is approximately 1202% more volatile than LIN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Albemarle Corporation (ALB) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 34% versus 3% for JPMorgan Chase & Co. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — LZM or LIN or JPM or ALB or BAC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Lifezone Metals Limited (LZM) is pulling ahead at 652.
2% versus -4. 4% for Albemarle Corporation (ALB). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Lifezone Metals Limited grew EPS 71. 2% year-over-year, compared to 1. 5% for JPMorgan Chase & Co.. 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 — LZM or LIN or JPM or ALB or BAC?
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) is the more profitable company, earning 20. 4% net margin versus -1289. 2% for Lifezone Metals Limited — meaning it keeps 20. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: LIN leads at 26. 3% versus -1724. 9% for LZM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — JPM leads at 59. 9%, 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 LZM or LIN or JPM or ALB or BAC 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, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 81x versus Linde plc's 1. 15x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Bank of America Corporation (BAC) trades at 12. 6x forward P/E versus 29. 3x for Linde plc — 16. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for LZM: 78. 1% to $7. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — LZM or LIN or JPM or ALB or BAC?
In this comparison, BAC (2.
3% yield), JPM (1. 9% yield), LIN (1. 1% yield), ALB (0. 9% yield) pay a dividend. LZM does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is LZM or LIN or JPM or ALB or BAC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Linde plc (LIN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
20), 1. 1% yield, +402. 9% 10Y return). Lifezone Metals Limited (LZM) carries a higher beta of 2. 57 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (LIN: +402. 9%, LZM: -60. 1%), 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 LZM and LIN and JPM and ALB and BAC?
These companies operate in different sectors (LZM (Basic Materials) and LIN (Basic Materials) and JPM (Financial Services) and ALB (Basic Materials) and BAC (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: LZM is a small-cap high-growth stock; LIN is a large-cap quality compounder stock; JPM is a large-cap deep-value stock; ALB is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; BAC is a large-cap deep-value stock. LIN, JPM, ALB, BAC pay a dividend while LZM 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.