Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Intrepid Potash, Inc.
How Intrepid Potash, Inc. stacks up
IPI · against 1,274 other Basic Materials companies
Growth
85/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #186 of 1,275 · scores higher than 85% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score128 peers with a growth score of 80–89, including IPI · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 85?
Weighted metrics compared with all Basic Materials companies.Mainly thanks to its earnings per share growth and revenue growth, which are stronger than most Basic Materials peers.
- slower revenue growth over three years: weaker than 65% of peers. 3-year revenue growth: -4.0% vs peer median -0.0%
- faster revenue growth over the last year: stronger than 79% of peers. Revenue growth: 17.1% vs peer median 3.4%
- Earnings per share turned from a loss to a profit. Earnings per share growth: — vs peer median 9.4%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = IPI, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | IPI | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 1,289 reported | 17.1% | 3.4% | 79% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 826 reported | Not reported | 9.4% | — | — | 33% |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 1,263 reported | -4.0% | -0.0% | 35% | 33% |
A metric that is not reported is left out of the score; the other weights are rescaled.
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around IPI| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 64.1B CNY (≈$9.0B) | 100 | 62 | |
| 1 | 2.29T ARS (≈$2.3B) | 100 | 85 | |
| 1 | 97.93T IDR (≈$6.1B) | 100 | 47 | |
| 1 | 13.8B USD | 100 | 83 | |
| 1 | 1.4B CAD (≈$1.0B) | 100 | 79 | |
| 186 | 3.6B CNY (≈$503M) | 85 | 52 | |
| 186 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score