Steel
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
TX vs CLF vs NUE vs MT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Steel
Steel
Steel
TX vs CLF vs NUE vs MT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Steel | Steel | Steel | Steel |
| Market Cap | $9.08B | $6.07B | $51.64B | $46.54B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $15.58B | $18.61B | $34.16B | $61.35B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $424M | $-1.48B | $2.33B | $3.15B |
| Gross Margin | 14.7% | -4.6% | 14.0% | 54.6% |
| Operating Margin | 4.5% | -7.5% | 10.0% | 5.9% |
| Forward P/E | 11.3x | — | 16.2x | 13.3x |
| Total Debt | $2.61B | $7.25B | $7.12B | $13.41B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $1.53B | $57M | $2.26B | $5.48B |
TX vs CLF vs NUE vs MT — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ternium S.A. (TX) | 100 | 290.9 | +190.9% |
| Cleveland-Cliffs In… (CLF) | 100 | 204.0 | +104.0% |
| Nucor Corporation (NUE) | 100 | 536.4 | +436.4% |
| ArcelorMittal S.A. (MT) | 100 | 635.6 | +535.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: TX vs CLF vs NUE vs MT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
TX carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 0.80, yield 5.8%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.80, Low D/E 16.1%, current ratio 2.49x
- Beta 0.80, yield 5.8%, current ratio 2.49x
- Lower P/E (11.3x vs 13.3x)
CLF lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
NUE is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 5.7%, EPS growth -11.1%, 3Y rev CAGR -7.8%
- 426.7% 10Y total return vs MT's 345.6%
- 5.7% revenue growth vs TX's -11.6%
- 6.8% margin vs CLF's -7.9%
MT is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +106.8% vs CLF's +25.4%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 5.7% revenue growth vs TX's -11.6% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (11.3x vs 13.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 6.8% margin vs CLF's -7.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.80 vs CLF's 2.36, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 5.8% yield, vs NUE's 1.0%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +106.8% vs CLF's +25.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 6.7% ROA vs CLF's -7.4%, ROIC 7.7% vs -7.5% |
TX vs CLF vs NUE vs MT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
TX vs CLF vs NUE vs MT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
NUE leads in 2 of 6 categories
TX leads 1 • CLF leads 0 • MT leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NUE leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MT is the larger business by revenue, generating $61.4B annually — 3.9x TX's $15.6B. NUE is the more profitable business, keeping 6.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CLF's -7.9%. On growth, NUE holds the edge at +21.3% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $15.6B | $18.6B | $34.2B | $61.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.5B | -$168M | $4.9B | $6.6B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $424M | -$1.5B | $2.3B | $3.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$187M | -$1.0B | $532M | $471M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +14.7% | -4.6% | +14.0% | +54.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +4.5% | -7.5% | +10.0% | +5.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +2.7% | -7.9% | +6.8% | +5.1% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -1.2% | -5.5% | +1.6% | +0.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -3.4% | -0.3% | +21.3% | +1.7% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -56.6% | +46.7% | +3.8% | +145.1% |
Valuation Metrics
TX leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 14.9x trailing earnings, MT trades at a 51% valuation discount to NUE's 30.1x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, TX's 7.2x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than NUE's 13.7x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $9.1B | $6.1B | $51.6B | $46.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $10.1B | $13.3B | $56.5B | $54.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 21.01x | -3.55x | 30.15x | 14.88x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 11.28x | — | 16.15x | 13.26x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 1.16x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 7.24x | — | 13.65x | 8.29x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.58x | 0.33x | 1.59x | 0.76x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.56x | 0.83x | 2.37x | 0.83x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | 98.80x |
Profitability & Efficiency
NUE leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
NUE delivers a 10.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $11 in annual profit, vs $-23 for CLF. TX carries lower financial leverage with a 0.16x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CLF's 1.15x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), NUE scores 7/9 vs CLF's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +2.6% | -23.4% | +10.6% | +5.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.8% | -7.4% | +6.7% | +3.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +3.2% | -7.5% | +7.7% | +4.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +3.6% | -8.2% | +8.9% | +5.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.16x | 1.15x | 0.32x | 0.24x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.1B | $7.2B | $4.9B | $7.9B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $1.5B | $57M | $2.3B | $5.5B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2.6B | $7.3B | $7.1B | $13.4B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 3.39x | -2.36x | 29.72x | 13.28x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — NUE and MT each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in NUE five years ago would be worth $24,001 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $5,043 for CLF. Over the past 12 months, MT leads with a +106.8% total return vs CLF's +25.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors MT at 31.7% vs CLF's -11.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +18.1% | -21.7% | +34.2% | +29.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +68.4% | +25.4% | +98.8% | +106.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +37.4% | -29.5% | +64.7% | +128.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +47.4% | -49.6% | +140.0% | +91.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +300.2% | +263.9% | +426.7% | +345.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +11.2% | -11.0% | +18.1% | +31.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — TX and NUE each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
TX is the less volatile stock with a 0.80 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CLF's 2.36 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. NUE currently trades 96.3% from its 52-week high vs CLF's 63.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.80x | 2.36x | 1.03x | 1.70x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $49.69 | $16.70 | $235.44 | $67.60 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $27.12 | $5.63 | $106.21 | $29.62 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +93.0% | +63.8% | +96.3% | +90.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 74.1 | 65.7 | 85.9 | 62.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 208K | 17.3M | 1.4M | 1.8M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — TX and NUE each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: TX as "Buy", CLF as "Hold", NUE as "Buy", MT as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 4.3% upside for CLF (target: $11) vs -10.9% for MT (target: $55). For income investors, TX offers the higher dividend yield at 5.84% vs MT's 0.90%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $41.33 | $11.11 | $222.83 | $54.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 16 | 43 | 32 | 44 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +5.8% | — | +1.0% | +0.9% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 0 | 15 | 5 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $2.70 | — | $2.22 | $0.55 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +1.4% | +0.6% |
NUE leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). TX leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 3 tied.
TX vs CLF vs NUE vs MT: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is TX or CLF or NUE or MT a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Nucor Corporation (NUE) is the stronger pick with 5.
7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -11. 6% for Ternium S. A. (TX). ArcelorMittal S. A. (MT) offers the better valuation at 14. 9x trailing P/E (13. 3x 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.
02Which has the better valuation — TX or CLF or NUE or MT?
On trailing P/E, ArcelorMittal S.
A. (MT) is the cheapest at 14. 9x versus Nucor Corporation at 30. 1x. On forward P/E, Ternium S. A. is actually cheaper at 11. 3x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — TX or CLF or NUE or MT?
Over the past 5 years, Nucor Corporation (NUE) delivered a total return of +140.
0%, compared to -49. 6% for Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (CLF). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NUE returned +426. 7% versus CLF's +263. 9%. 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 — TX or CLF or NUE or MT?
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.
05Which is growing faster — TX or CLF or NUE or MT?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Nucor Corporation (NUE) is pulling ahead at 5.
7% 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.
06Which has better profit margins — TX or CLF or NUE or MT?
Nucor Corporation (NUE) is the more profitable company, earning 5.
4% net margin versus -7. 9% for Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. — meaning it keeps 5. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NUE leads at 8. 2% 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.
07Is TX or CLF or NUE or MT more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Ternium S.
A. (TX) trades at 11. 3x forward P/E versus 16. 2x for Nucor Corporation — 4. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CLF: 4. 3% to $11. 11.
08Which pays a better dividend — TX or CLF or NUE or MT?
In this comparison, TX (5.
8% yield), NUE (1. 0% yield), MT (0. 9% yield) pay a dividend. CLF does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is TX or CLF or NUE or MT better for a retirement portfolio?
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. 8% yield, +300. 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: +300. 2%, CLF: +263. 9%), 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 TX and CLF and NUE and MT?
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; NUE is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; MT is a mid-cap deep-value stock. TX, NUE, MT pay 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.
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.