BTU vs NC
Peabody Energy Corp. and Nacco Industries Inc., side by side — 10 fiscal years reported in USD, drawn from SEC filings.
Most recent reported year
| Metric | BTU | NC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $3.9B | $277.2M |
| Net income | $-42.5M | $17.6M |
| Gross margin | · | 13.9% |
| Net margin | −1.1% | 6.3% |
| Return on equity | · | 4.2% |
| Diluted EPS | −$0.43 | $2.35 |
| Dividend / share | $0.30 | $0.98 |
| Payout ratio | · | 41.7% |
| Free cash flow | $-77.7M | $2.3M |
| Equity | $3.5B | $429.2M |
| Net debt / equity | −0.07× | 0.12× |
| Current ratio | 1.85× | 3.09× |
| Revenue CAGR 5y | 6.0% | 16.6% |
| Profit CAGR 5y | · | 3.5% |
BTU bills 13.9× the revenue of NC, and BTU 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 | NC |
|---|---|---|
| FY2025 | $3.9B | $277.2M |
| FY2024 | $4.2B | $237.7M |
| FY2023 | $4.9B | $214.8M |
| FY2022 | $5.0B | $241.7M |
| FY2021 | $3.3B | $191.8M |
| FY2020 | $2.9B | $128.4M |
| FY2019 | $4.6B | $141.0M |
| FY2018 | $5.6B | $135.4M |
| FY2016 | $4.7B | $111.1M |
| FY2015 | $5.6B | $148.0M |
Bottom line
| Fiscal year | BTU | NC |
|---|---|---|
| FY2025 | $-42.5M | $17.6M |
| FY2024 | $403.5M | $33.7M |
| FY2023 | $815.6M | $-39.6M |
| FY2022 | $1.3B | $74.2M |
| FY2021 | $371.4M | $48.1M |
| FY2020 | $-1.9B | $14.8M |
| FY2019 | $-185.1M | $39.6M |
| FY2018 | $663.8M | $34.8M |
| FY2016 | $-729.3M | $29.6M |
| FY2015 | $-2.0B | $22.0M |
16 fiscal years
| Fiscal year | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|
| FY2025 | +$3,584,302,000 | BTU |
| FY2024 | +$3,998,992,000 | BTU |
| FY2023 | +$4,731,906,000 | BTU |
| FY2022 | +$4,740,181,000 | BTU |
| FY2021 | +$3,126,454,000 | BTU |
| FY2020 | +$2,752,668,000 | BTU |
| FY2019 | +$4,482,410,000 | BTU |
| FY2018 | +$5,446,425,000 | BTU |
| FY2016 | +$4,604,219,000 | BTU |
| FY2015 | +$5,461,202,000 | BTU |
| FY2014 | +$5,895,418,000 | BTU |
| FY2013 | +$6,081,034,000 | BTU |
| FY2012 | +$7,204,136,000 | BTU |
| FY2011 | +$7,105,445,000 | BTU |
| FY2010 | +$5,782,600,000 | BTU |
| FY2009 | +$3,536,400,000 | BTU |
BTU has reported the higher revenue in every one of these 16 fiscal years. The gap has widened since the earliest year compared.
16 of 19 comparable fiscal years — a year missing data on either side is not counted.
16 fiscal years
| Fiscal year | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|
| FY2025 | −7.4 pp | NC |
| FY2024 | −4.7 pp | NC |
| FY2023 | +34.9 pp | BTU |
| FY2022 | −4.2 pp | NC |
| FY2021 | −13.9 pp | NC |
| FY2020 | −76.6 pp | NC |
| FY2019 | −32.1 pp | NC |
| FY2018 | −13.8 pp | NC |
| FY2016 | −42.0 pp | NC |
| FY2015 | −49.8 pp | NC |
| FY2014 | −6.4 pp | NC |
| FY2013 | −12.1 pp | NC |
| FY2012 | −19.6 pp | NC |
| FY2011 | −8.5 pp | NC |
| FY2010 | +3.1 pp | BTU |
| FY2009 | +6.6 pp | BTU |
The higher net margin has changed hands between BTU and NC over this period.
16 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 NC's over the 16 comparable fiscal years — 21.7 percentage points of standard deviation against 12.9.
16 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 NC over these 16 fiscal years — BTU led in 3 and NC in 13.
16 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 NC's over the 10 comparable fiscal years — 57.4 percentage points of standard deviation against 11.6.
10 of 19 comparable fiscal years — a year missing data on either side is not counted.
Year by year
The lead in return on equity changed hands between BTU and NC over these 10 fiscal years — BTU led in 2 and NC in 8.
10 of 19 comparable fiscal years — a year missing data on either side is not counted.