Quaker Chemical vs Minerals Technologies
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRA’s take AI analyst
I put Quaker Chemical and Minerals Technologies side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- Minerals Technologies is the larger business, with $2.1B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $1.9B for Quaker Chemical.
- Quaker Chemical grew revenue faster (2.7%, against −2.2%).
- Quaker Chemical kept more of each dollar of sales as operating profit (2.8% operating margin, against 2.3%).
Who comes out ahead
Of the 10 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
Quaker Chemical
KWR
8/10
Revenue growth5-year growthGross marginOperating marginNet marginFCF marginReturn on equityPiotroski F-score
Minerals Technologies
MTX
2/10
Return on capitalShare count change
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | KWR FY25 | MTX FY25 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $2.7B | $2.0B |
| Revenue | $1.9B | $2.1B |
| Free cash flow | $80.6M | $86.6M |
| Net income | −$2.5M | −$18.4M |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | 2.7% | −2.2% |
| 5-year growth | 5.9% | 5.4% |
| Share count change | −2.2% | −2.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 36.0% | 25.0% |
| Operating margin | 2.8% | 2.3% |
| Net margin | −0.1% | −0.9% |
| FCF margin | 4.3% | 4.2% |
| Return on capital | 1.3% | 1.6% |
| Return on equity | −0.2% | −1.1% |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | $726M | $629M |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 6.1x | — |
| Dividends and buybacks | $75.9M | $72.7M |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | 27.8x | — |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 4 |
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.