vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Celanese Corp (CE) and Liberty Global Ltd. (LBTYA). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Celanese Corp is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($2.2B vs $1.2B, roughly 1.8× Liberty Global Ltd.). Celanese Corp runs the higher net margin — 0.6% vs -237.0%, a 237.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Liberty Global Ltd. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (187.2% vs -7.0%). Liberty Global Ltd. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($193.3M vs $168.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Celanese Corp's revenue compounded faster (-8.1% CAGR vs -20.4%).
Celanese Corporation, formerly known as Hoechst Celanese, is an American technology and specialty materials company headquartered in Irving, Texas. It is a Fortune 500 corporation. The company is the world's leading producer of acetic acid, producing about 1.95 million tonnes per year, representing approximately 20% of global production. Celanese is also the world's largest producer of vinyl acetate monomer (VAM).
Liberty Global Ltd. is a British-Dutch-American multinational telecommunications company domiciled in Bermuda, with headquarters in London, Amsterdam and Denver. Its respective legal names are Liberty Global Holdings Limited (UK), Liberty Global B.V. (Netherlands) and Liberty Global, Inc., with the first of these being publicly traded. It was formed in 2005 by the merger of the international arm of Liberty Media and UnitedGlobalCom (UGC).
CE vs LBTYA — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $2.2B | $1.2B |
| Net Profit | $14.0M | $-2.9B |
| Gross Margin | 19.1% | 66.8% |
| Operating Margin | 4.0% | -8.6% |
| Net Margin | 0.6% | -237.0% |
| Revenue YoY | -7.0% | 187.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | 100.7% | -230.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.13 | $-8.66 |
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 | $2.2B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.4B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.5B | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.4B | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.4B | $-1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.6B | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.7B | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.6B | $1.9B |
| Q4 25 | $14.0M | $-2.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.4B | $-90.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $199.0M | $-2.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $-21.0M | $-1.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $-1.9B | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $116.0M | $-1.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $155.0M | $268.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $121.0M | $510.0M |
| Q4 25 | 19.1% | 66.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 21.5% | 67.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 21.1% | 63.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.9% | 65.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 22.7% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 23.5% | 69.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 24.2% | 68.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 21.2% | 65.4% |
| Q4 25 | 4.0% | -8.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | -52.7% | -0.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.2% | 2.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.0% | 5.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | -59.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.4% | 5.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.4% | 1.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 8.0% | 1.2% |
| Q4 25 | 0.6% | -237.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | -56.1% | -7.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.9% | -220.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | -0.9% | -114.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | -80.8% | -158.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.4% | -74.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.8% | 14.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.6% | 26.2% |
| Q4 25 | $0.13 | $-8.66 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-12.39 | $-0.27 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.81 | $-8.09 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.19 | $-3.84 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-17.50 | $6.15 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.06 | $-3.95 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.41 | $0.71 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.10 | $1.32 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | — | $2.2B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $11.4B | $7.8B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $4.0B | $9.7B |
| Total Assets | $21.7B | $22.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 2.81× | 0.80× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $3.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $3.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $3.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.8B |
| Q4 25 | $11.4B | $7.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.7B | $7.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $12.7B | $7.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $12.4B | $8.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $11.1B | $8.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.3B | $14.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $11.1B | $14.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $11.0B | $14.8B |
| Q4 25 | $4.0B | $9.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.0B | $12.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.3B | $13.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.2B | $12.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.2B | $12.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.3B | $18.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.2B | $18.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.1B | $18.4B |
| Q4 25 | $21.7B | $22.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $22.2B | $25.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $23.7B | $27.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $23.2B | $26.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $22.9B | $25.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $25.9B | $41.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $25.8B | $40.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $26.0B | $40.6B |
| Q4 25 | 2.81× | 0.80× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.95× | 0.61× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.41× | 0.60× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.39× | 0.65× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.14× | 0.66× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.56× | 0.80× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.54× | 0.80× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.56× | 0.80× |
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 | $252.0M | $630.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $168.0M | $193.3M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 7.6% | 15.7% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 3.8% | 35.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 18.00× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $803.0M | $-132.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $252.0M | $630.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $447.0M | $301.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $410.0M | $149.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $37.0M | $129.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $494.0M | $791.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $79.0M | $449.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $292.0M | $546.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $101.0M | $245.7M |
| Q4 25 | $168.0M | $193.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $383.0M | $-41.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $317.0M | $-170.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-65.0M | $-114.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $389.0M | $712.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-9.0M | $102.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $187.0M | $256.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-36.0M | $-105.1M |
| Q4 25 | 7.6% | 15.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 15.8% | -3.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.5% | -13.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | -2.7% | -9.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 16.4% | -50.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | -0.3% | 5.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.1% | 13.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | -1.4% | -5.4% |
| Q4 25 | 3.8% | 35.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.6% | 28.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.7% | 25.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.3% | 20.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.4% | -5.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.3% | 17.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.0% | 15.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.2% | 18.0% |
| Q4 25 | 18.00× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.06× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.35× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.68× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.88× | 2.04× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.83× | 0.48× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
CE
| Engineered Materials | $1.3B | 58% |
| Acetyl Chain | $940.0M | 43% |
LBTYA
Segment breakdown not available.
