TX vs CLF

For growth investors, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.

(CLF) is the stronger pick with -3. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -11. 6% for Ternium S. A. (TX). Ternium S. A. (TX) offers the better valuation at 22. 0x trailing P/E (11. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Ternium S. A. (TX) a "Buy" — based on 16 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.

Over the past 5 years, Ternium S.

A. (TX) delivered a total return of +58. 5%, compared to -45. 5% for Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (CLF). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: TX returned +271. 2% versus CLF's +227. 4%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Ternium S.

A. (TX) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 80β versus Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. 's 2. 36β — meaning CLF is approximately 194% more volatile than TX relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Ternium S. A. (TX) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 16% versus 115% for Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.

(CLF) is pulling ahead at -3. 0% versus -11. 6% for Ternium S. A. (TX). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Ternium S. A. grew EPS 914. 8% year-over-year, compared to -91. 1% for Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, TX leads at -1. 7% 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.

Ternium S.

A. (TX) is the more profitable company, earning 2. 7% net margin versus -7. 9% for Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. — meaning it keeps 2. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: TX leads at 4. 5% versus -7. 5% for CLF. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — TX leads at 15. 0%, 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.

Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CLF: -0.

4% to $11. 11.

In this comparison, TX (5.

6% yield) pays a dividend. CLF does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Ternium S.

A. (TX) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 80), 5. 6% yield, +271. 2% 10Y return). Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (CLF) carries a higher beta of 2. 36 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (TX: +271. 2%, CLF: +227. 4%), 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.

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: TX is a small-cap income-oriented stock; CLF is a small-cap quality compounder stock. TX pays a dividend while CLF 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.