BTU vs CNR
Peabody Energy Corp. and Core Natural Resources, Inc., side by side — 10 fiscal years reported in USD, drawn from SEC filings.
Most recent reported year
| Metric | BTU | CNR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $3.9B | $4.2B |
| Net income | $-42.5M | $-153.2M |
| Gross margin | · | 14.9% |
| Net margin | −1.1% | −3.7% |
| Return on equity | · | −5.8% |
| Diluted EPS | −$0.43 | −$2.98 |
| Dividend / share | $0.30 | $0.40 |
| Payout ratio | · | −17.1% |
| Free cash flow | $-77.7M | $21.2M |
| Equity | $3.5B | $3.7B |
| Net debt / equity | −0.07× | −0.01× |
| Current ratio | 1.85× | 1.60× |
| Revenue CAGR 5y | 6.0% | 32.5% |
| Profit CAGR 5y | · | · |
BTU and CNR book revenue within 15% of each other, and both closed the last reported year at a loss.
The stronger figure of the pair is set in bold. That is arithmetic, not a recommendation — this page does not pick a winner. "·" marks a figure not available in our data.
10 years side by side
| Fiscal year | BTU | CNR |
|---|---|---|
| FY2025 | $3.9B | $4.2B |
| FY2024 | $4.2B | $2.2B |
| FY2023 | $4.9B | $2.5B |
| FY2022 | $5.0B | $2.3B |
| FY2021 | $3.3B | $1.3B |
| FY2020 | $2.9B | $1.0B |
| FY2019 | $4.6B | $1.4B |
| FY2018 | $5.6B | $1.5B |
| FY2016 | $4.7B | $1.2B |
| FY2015 | $5.6B | $1.4B |
Bottom line
| Fiscal year | BTU | CNR |
|---|---|---|
| FY2025 | $-42.5M | $-153.2M |
| FY2024 | $403.5M | $286.4M |
| FY2023 | $815.6M | $655.9M |
| FY2022 | $1.3B | $467.0M |
| FY2021 | $371.4M | $34.1M |
| FY2020 | $-1.9B | $-9.8M |
| FY2019 | $-185.1M | $76.0M |
| FY2018 | $663.8M | $153.0M |
| FY2016 | $-729.3M | $41.5M |
| FY2015 | $-2.0B | $307.0M |
10 fiscal years
| Fiscal year | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|
| FY2025 | −$303,275,000 | CNR |
| FY2024 | +$2,072,294,000 | BTU |
| FY2023 | +$2,440,065,000 | BTU |
| FY2022 | +$2,701,882,000 | BTU |
| FY2021 | +$2,057,266,000 | BTU |
| FY2020 | +$1,859,457,000 | BTU |
| FY2019 | +$3,192,497,000 | BTU |
| FY2018 | +$4,049,785,000 | BTU |
| FY2016 | +$3,484,438,000 | BTU |
| FY2015 | +$4,187,480,000 | BTU |
The higher-revenue side has changed between BTU and CNR over this period. The gap has narrowed since the earliest year compared.
10 of 19 comparable fiscal years — a year missing data on either side is not counted.
10 fiscal years
| Fiscal year | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|
| FY2025 | +2.6 pp | BTU |
| FY2024 | −3.7 pp | CNR |
| FY2023 | −9.7 pp | CNR |
| FY2022 | +6.0 pp | BTU |
| FY2021 | +8.5 pp | BTU |
| FY2020 | −63.7 pp | CNR |
| FY2019 | −10.5 pp | CNR |
| FY2018 | +0.2 pp | BTU |
| FY2016 | −19.4 pp | CNR |
| FY2015 | −57.2 pp | CNR |
The higher net margin has changed hands between BTU and CNR over this period.
10 of 19 comparable fiscal years — a year missing data on either side is not counted.
Standard deviation, each side
BTU's net margin has been more volatile than CNR's over the 10 comparable fiscal years — 26.1 percentage points of standard deviation against 9.7.
10 of 19 comparable fiscal years — a year missing data on either side is not counted.
Year by year
The lead in net margin changed hands between BTU and CNR over these 10 fiscal years — BTU led in 4 and CNR in 6.
10 of 19 comparable fiscal years — a year missing data on either side is not counted.
Standard deviation, each side
BTU's return on equity has been more volatile than CNR's over the 3 comparable fiscal years — 76.9 percentage points of standard deviation against 18.4.
3 of 19 comparable fiscal years — a year missing data on either side is not counted.
Year by year
CNR led in return on equity in every one of the 3 comparable fiscal years — a structural lead, not a recent swing.
3 of 19 comparable fiscal years — a year missing data on either side is not counted.