BTU vs METC
Peabody Energy Corp. and Ramaco Resources, Inc., side by side — 9 fiscal years reported in USD, drawn from SEC filings.
Most recent reported year
| Metric | BTU | METC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $3.9B | $536.6M |
| Net income | $-42.5M | $-51.4M |
| Gross margin | · | 15.5% |
| Net margin | −1.1% | −9.6% |
| Return on equity | · | −12.2% |
| Diluted EPS | −$0.43 | −$0.99 |
| Dividend / share | $0.30 | · |
| Payout ratio | · | −8.4% |
| Free cash flow | $-77.7M | · |
| Equity | $3.5B | $483.6M |
| Net debt / equity | −0.07× | 0.06× |
| Current ratio | 1.85× | 5.46× |
| Revenue CAGR 5y | 6.0% | 26.0% |
| Profit CAGR 5y | · | · |
BTU bills 7.2× the revenue of METC, 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.
9 years side by side
| Fiscal year | BTU | METC |
|---|---|---|
| FY2025 | $3.9B | $536.6M |
| FY2024 | $4.2B | $666.3M |
| FY2023 | $4.9B | $693.5M |
| FY2022 | $5.0B | $565.7M |
| FY2021 | $3.3B | $283.4M |
| FY2020 | $2.9B | $168.9M |
| FY2019 | $4.6B | $168.9M |
| FY2018 | $5.6B | $227.6M |
| FY2016 | $4.7B | $5.2M |
Bottom line
| Fiscal year | BTU | METC |
|---|---|---|
| FY2025 | $-42.5M | $-51.4M |
| FY2024 | $403.5M | $11.2M |
| FY2023 | $815.6M | $82.3M |
| FY2022 | $1.3B | $116.0M |
| FY2021 | $371.4M | $39.8M |
| FY2020 | $-1.9B | $-4.9M |
| FY2019 | $-185.1M | $24.9M |
| FY2018 | $663.8M | $25.1M |
| FY2016 | $-729.3M | $-7.5M |
9 fiscal years
| Fiscal year | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|
| FY2025 | +$3,324,882,000 | BTU |
| FY2024 | +$3,570,405,000 | BTU |
| FY2023 | +$4,253,176,000 | BTU |
| FY2022 | +$4,416,212,000 | BTU |
| FY2021 | +$3,034,906,000 | BTU |
| FY2020 | +$2,712,185,000 | BTU |
| FY2019 | +$4,454,485,000 | BTU |
| FY2018 | +$5,354,226,000 | BTU |
| FY2016 | +$4,710,084,000 | BTU |
BTU has reported the higher revenue in every one of these 9 fiscal years. The gap has narrowed since the earliest year compared.
9 of 19 comparable fiscal years — a year missing data on either side is not counted.
9 fiscal years
| Fiscal year | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|
| FY2025 | +8.5 pp | BTU |
| FY2024 | +7.8 pp | BTU |
| FY2023 | +4.6 pp | BTU |
| FY2022 | +6.0 pp | BTU |
| FY2021 | −2.8 pp | METC |
| FY2020 | −62.1 pp | METC |
| FY2019 | −18.8 pp | METC |
| FY2018 | +0.9 pp | BTU |
| FY2016 | +128.8 pp | BTU |
The higher net margin has changed hands between BTU and METC over this period.
9 of 19 comparable fiscal years — a year missing data on either side is not counted.
Standard deviation, each side
METC's net margin has been more volatile than BTU's over the 9 comparable fiscal years — 48.5 percentage points of standard deviation against 25.4.
9 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 METC over these 9 fiscal years — BTU led in 6 and METC in 3.
9 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 METC's over the 3 comparable fiscal years — 56.1 percentage points of standard deviation against 25.0.
3 of 18 comparable fiscal years — a year missing data on either side is not counted.
Year by year
METC led in return on equity in every one of the 3 comparable fiscal years — a structural lead, not a recent swing.
3 of 18 comparable fiscal years — a year missing data on either side is not counted.