vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of PEABODY ENERGY CORP (BTU) and CMB.TECH NV (CMBT). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
PEABODY ENERGY CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.0B vs $592.8M, roughly 1.7× CMB.TECH NV). CMB.TECH NV runs the higher net margin — 32.3% vs 1.2%, a 31.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, PEABODY ENERGY CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (-9.0% vs -34.6%).
Peabody Energy is an American coal mining company headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. Its primary business consists of the mining, sale, and distribution of coal, which is purchased for use in electricity generation and steelmaking. Peabody also markets, brokers, and trades coal through offices in China, Australia, and the United States.
CMB.TECH, before October 2024 known as Euronav, is a crude oil tanker transport company, which consists of VLCCs, Suezmaxes and FSOs.
BTU vs CMBT — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2024
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.0B | $592.8M |
| Net Profit | $12.4M | $191.2M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 0.8% | 46.4% |
| Net Margin | 1.2% | 32.3% |
| Revenue YoY | -9.0% | -34.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | -67.2% | -63.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.11 | $1.01 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history. Quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $890.1M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $937.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | $592.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $983.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | $12.4M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-70.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-27.6M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $34.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $37.8M | $191.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $101.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $199.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $39.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.8% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -8.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -4.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.6% | 46.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 22.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.2% | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -6.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.1% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.4% | 32.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.1% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | $0.11 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.58 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.23 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.27 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.25 | $1.01 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.74 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.42 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.29 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $575.3M | $38.9M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $321.2M | $2.6B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.5B | $1.2B |
| Total Assets | $5.8B | $3.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.09× | 2.20× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $575.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $603.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $585.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $696.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $700.4M | $38.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $772.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $621.7M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $855.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | $321.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $321.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $329.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $331.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $332.3M | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $323.7M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $323.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $323.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | $3.5B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.5B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.6B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.7B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.7B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.6B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.7B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.5B | — |
| Q4 25 | $5.8B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.7B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.8B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.8B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.0B | $3.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.9B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.9B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.7B | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.09× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.09× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.09× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.09× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.09× | 2.20× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.09× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.09× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.09× | — |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Cash flow is harder to manipulate than net income.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $68.6M | $204.4M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 5.53× | 1.07× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $68.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $122.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $23.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $119.9M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $119.8M | $204.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $359.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.8M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $119.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | 5.53× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.49× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.17× | 1.07× | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.55× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.04× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.01× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
BTU
| Seaborne Metallurgical Mining | $305.4M | 30% |
| Powder River Basin Mining | $300.3M | 29% |
| Seaborne Thermal Mining | $205.6M | 20% |
| Other | $182.1M | 18% |
| Thermal Coal | $28.9M | 3% |
CMBT
Segment breakdown not available.
