CF Industries vs Scotts Miracle-Gro
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRA’s take AI analyst
I put CF Industries and Scotts Miracle-Gro side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- CF Industries is the larger business, with $7.1B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $3.4B for Scotts Miracle-Gro, about 2.1 times as much.
- CF Industries grew revenue faster (19.3%, against −3.9%).
- CF Industries kept more of each dollar of sales as operating profit (32.5% operating margin, against 10.5%).
- CF Industries turned more of its sales into free cash flow (25.4% FCF margin, against 8.0%).
- CF Industries earned a higher return on the capital invested in it (20.6%, against 13.4%).
- Investors pay more for each dollar of Scotts Miracle-Gro’s earnings: a P/E of 49.9x against 9.0x for CF Industries.
Who comes out ahead
Of the 10 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
CF Industries
CF
10/10
Revenue growth5-year growthGross marginOperating marginNet marginFCF marginReturn on capitalPiotroski F-scoreNet debt / EBITDAShare count change
Scotts Miracle-Gro
SMG
0/10
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | CF FY25 | SMG FY25 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $18.6B | $3.5B |
| Revenue | $7.1B | $3.4B |
| Free cash flow | $1.8B | $274M |
| Net income | $1.5B | $145M |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | 19.3% | −3.9% |
| 5-year growth | 11.4% | −3.8% |
| Share count change | −10.2% | 3.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 38.5% | 30.6% |
| Operating margin | 32.5% | 10.5% |
| Net margin | 20.5% | 4.3% |
| FCF margin | 25.4% | 8.0% |
| Return on capital | 20.6% | 13.4% |
| Return on equity | 29.6% | — |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | $1.2B | $2.1B |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.4x | 4.8x |
| Dividends and buybacks | $1.7B | $173M |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | 9.0x | 49.9x |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 | 6 |
Ten years
Revenue
Operating margin
Free cash flow
Return on capital
Each company's latest fiscal year; fiscal years end in different months. The best value in each row is highlighted where higher (or lower) is clearly better. Not investment advice.