vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Albemarle Corporation (ALB) and International Paper (IP), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
International Paper is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($4.7B vs $1.4B, roughly 3.3× Albemarle Corporation). Albemarle Corporation runs the higher net margin — -29.0% vs -50.3%, a 21.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Albemarle Corporation posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (15.9% vs 3.6%). International Paper produced more free cash flow last quarter ($255.0M vs $233.1M). Over the past eight quarters, Albemarle Corporation's revenue compounded faster (2.4% CAGR vs 1.3%).
Albemarle Corporation develops, manufactures, and markets engineered specialty chemicals worldwide. It operates through three segments: Lithium, Bromine, and Catalysts. The Lithium segment offers lithium compounds, including lithium carbonate, lithium hydroxide, lithium chloride, and lithium specialties; and reagents, such as butyllithium and lithium aluminum hydride for use in lithium batteries for consumer electronics and electric vehicles, high performance greases, thermoplastic elastomers...
The International Paper Company is an American pulp and paper company, the largest such company in the world. It has approximately 39,000 employees, and is headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.
ALB vs IP — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.4B | $4.7B |
| Net Profit | $-414.2M | $-2.4B |
| Gross Margin | 13.9% | 32.2% |
| Operating Margin | -15.2% | -56.4% |
| Net Margin | -29.0% | -50.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 15.9% | 3.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | -650.1% | -1521.8% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-3.88 | $-4.76 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $1.4B | $4.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $6.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3B | $6.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1B | $5.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $4.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.4B | $4.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.4B | $4.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.4B | $4.6B |
| Q4 25 | $-414.2M | $-2.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $-160.7M | $-1.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $22.9M | $75.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $41.3M | $-105.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $75.3M | $-147.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.1B | $150.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-188.2M | $498.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.4M | $56.0M |
| Q4 25 | 13.9% | 32.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.0% | 31.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.8% | 27.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 14.5% | 27.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.2% | 29.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | -7.7% | 28.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | -0.7% | 29.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.9% | 25.9% |
| Q4 25 | -15.2% | -56.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | -16.6% | -10.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.6% | 1.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.8% | -2.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.4% | -4.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | -81.9% | 5.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | -34.4% | 6.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | -13.2% | 3.7% |
| Q4 25 | -29.0% | -50.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | -12.3% | -17.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.7% | 1.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.8% | -1.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.1% | -3.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -78.9% | 3.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | -13.2% | 10.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.2% | 1.2% |
| Q4 25 | $-3.88 | $-4.76 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.72 | $-2.09 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.16 | $0.14 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.00 | $-0.24 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.29 | $-0.42 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-9.45 | $0.42 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.96 | $1.41 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.08 | $0.16 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | — | $1.1B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $3.2B | $8.8B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $9.5B | $14.8B |
| Total Assets | $16.4B | $38.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.33× | 0.60× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.9B | $995.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.8B | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.5B | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.7B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.8B | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.1B | $1.1B |
| Q4 25 | $3.2B | $8.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.6B | $9.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.6B | $9.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.5B | $9.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.5B | $5.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.6B | $5.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.5B | $5.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.5B | $5.5B |
| Q4 25 | $9.5B | $14.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.0B | $17.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.2B | $18.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.0B | $18.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.0B | $8.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.2B | $8.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $11.2B | $8.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $11.5B | $8.3B |
| Q4 25 | $16.4B | $38.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $17.1B | $40.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $17.3B | $42.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.0B | $41.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $16.6B | $22.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $17.5B | $23.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.4B | $23.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $19.0B | $23.0B |
| Q4 25 | 0.33× | 0.60× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.36× | 0.52× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.35× | 0.52× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.35× | 0.51× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.35× | 0.66× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.35× | 0.62× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.31× | 0.62× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.31× | 0.66× |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $388.5M | $905.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $233.1M | $255.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 16.3% | 5.4% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 10.9% | 13.7% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $692.5M | $-159.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $388.5M | $905.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $355.6M | $605.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-7.2M | $476.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $545.4M | $-288.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $674.0K | $397.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $240.5M | $521.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $362.9M | $365.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $98.0M | $395.0M |
| Q4 25 | $233.1M | $255.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $223.4M | $150.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-126.8M | $54.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $362.8M | $-618.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-355.1M | $137.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-62.6M | $309.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-84.7M | $167.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-481.4M | $144.0M |
| Q4 25 | 16.3% | 5.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 17.1% | 2.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -9.5% | 0.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 33.7% | -10.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | -28.8% | 3.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | -4.6% | 6.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | -5.9% | 3.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | -35.4% | 3.1% |
| Q4 25 | 10.9% | 13.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 10.1% | 7.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.0% | 6.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 17.0% | 5.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 28.9% | 5.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 22.4% | 4.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 31.3% | 4.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 42.6% | 5.4% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.31× | 6.35× | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.19× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.01× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 3.47× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.73× | ||
| Q1 24 | 40.01× | 7.05× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
ALB
| Energy Storage | $759.1M | 53% |
| Specialties | $348.9M | 24% |
| Ketjen | $320.1M | 22% |
IP
Segment breakdown not available.
