Applied Minerals Inc's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Applied Minerals Inc (AMNL) against its publicly traded competitors: sales growth, net income, profitability, valuation and market share, plus each peer's market capitalization, revenue, income and employees. Free below: the top 5 peers. Subscriber access adds the full competitor list and CSV downloads.
Key Findings: Applied Minerals Inc vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 1M vs 105,759M combined for tracked competitors (0.0% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+46.9% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs decelerating (-49.8%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Applied Minerals Inc generated 392.7% revenue growth year over year in Q3 2020, vs -4.7% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its -523.8% net margin compares with 3.4% for the peer group.
- Peer revenue share: Applied Minerals Inc accounted for 0.0% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, up from 0.0% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.02M compares with $1.05M for the peer group (0.0x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
AMNL Sales vs. its Competitors, Q3 2020
Applied Minerals Inc reported revenue growth of 392.67 % year on year in Q3 2020, above its competitors' combined revenue change of -4.70 %.
With a net margin of -523.75 %, Applied Minerals Inc reported lower profitability than its competitors (3.38 %).
Applied Minerals Inc generated 0.00 % of the combined sales of its peer group, up from 0.00 % a year earlier.
Applied Minerals Inc vs. its Competitors, Q3 2020
Revenue growth, year on year
Net margin
Revenue run-rate vs trailing 12 months
TTM net margin
TTM = trailing twelve months. Run-rate annualizes the latest quarter (×4) and compares it to TTM. In millions of $. High-Confidence Competitors are named as a competitor directly in an SEC filing; Similar-Size Competitors are the closest peers by market-cap rank within the same industry; Similar Growth & Profitability Competitors are the closest peers by combined revenue growth, operating margin and ROIC, all independent of the competitor list.
TTM revenue, latest-quarter run-rate and net income/margin benchmarked across Applied Minerals Inc and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Applied Minerals Inc | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (4) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Applied Minerals Inc's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Construction Raw Materials industry grew revenue 11.9% year over year, combined, vs 392.7% for Applied Minerals Inc. Applied Minerals Inc's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.00% to 0.00%, a gain of 0.00 percentage points.
Applied Minerals Inc's Competitor Quality Breadth
Share of each group, trailing 12 months: profitable (net margin > 0), expanding (revenue growth > 0), growing faster than the industry's own median, and financially distressed (Piotroski F-Score of 2 or below).
| Entity | Profitable | Expanding | Above Industry Growth | Distressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applied Minerals Inc | No | No | No | No |
| Competitors combined (12) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 0.00 % (0 of 8) | 37.50 % (3 of 8) | 25.00 % (2 of 8) | 37.50 % (3 of 8) |
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. Altman Z-Score is not shown here: it is not populated in the underlying data for any company. Percentages are of companies in each group that report the relevant metric, not of the full group size.
AMNL Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
AMNL Stock Performance relative to Similar Growth & Profitability Competitors
5 Best-Performing Tracked Competitors, Trailing 12 Months
| # | Competitor | TTM Share Price Return | vs U.S.A. 500 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nucor Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Steel Dynamics Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Reliance Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Mcewen Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | Commercial Metals Company | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Applied Minerals Inc's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Applied Minerals Inc's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Currently there is limited competition involving the sale of halloysite-based products in our advanced applications target markets. If our DRAGONITE penetrates our advanced application target markets, we may face significant competition from such competitors as well as non-halloysite solutions often sold by larger, more established companies. The basis for competition is performance, price and reliability. If we are successful in penetrating our advanced applications target markets, we may face significant competition from producers of halloysite.
Despite the widespread occurrence of halloysite, large deposits from which high purity halloysite can be economically extracted are comparatively rare. These include deposits with high-grade zones that are dominantly halloysite and lower grade deposits where halloysite can be readily separated to give a high purity product. Relatively pure halloysite typically occurs as narrow lenses or pockets in altered rock and often requires selective mining and sorting to produce a high-grade product. Halloysite is often associated with fine-grained kaolinite, silica or other fine-grained mineral contaminants. using beneficiation methods that rely primarily on wet size classification.
The production of high-grade halloysite from large deposits for specialist industrial use at present is limited to the Dragon Mine and open pit mines owned by Imerys, a large French minerals company, in Northland, New Zealand. The New Zealand mines produce about 15,000 tons of halloysite per year. The raw clay from New Zealand contains around 50% halloysite, 50% silica minerals (quartz, cristobalite, tridymite, amorphous silica), and minor feldspar. It must be processed to eliminate the silica materials, which are classified as carcinogens. The exact percentages of silica and cristobalite in Imerys’ halloysite products is not known, but Imerys’ Safety Data Sheet for its premium halloysite filter cake indicates that the levels of cristobalite and silica are less than 10%. The permitted exposure levels for cristobalite are one–half of the permitted exposure levels for crystalline silica. Our Safety Data Sheet indicates that our processed halloysite “may contain naturally occurring Respirable Crystalline Silica (CAS #’s 14808-60-7 and 14464-46-1) at trace concentration levels below HazCom 2012 and GHS Revision 3 hazard classification limits. Per XRC analysis, which combines the analytical capabilities of X-Ray Diffraction, Computer Controlled Scanning Electron Microscopy/Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy and Raman Spectroscopy to conduct particle-by-particle inter-instrumental relocation and physicochemical/mineralogical analysis - naturally occurring trace level substances in these products, including Respirable Crystalline Silica, are inextricably bound, environmentally unavailable and at de minimis concentrations. Thus, in the current and anticipated future physical state of these products, they are believed to be incapable of causing harm under normal conditions of use or as a result of extreme upset.” Our halloysite does not contain cristobalite.
Imerys’ halloysite has low amounts of Fe2O3. Some of our raw halloysite may contain more Fe2O3 but it can be processed out through bleaching or can be reduced through blending with purer halloysite.
Imerys’ website indicates that its halloysite is sold for use in tableware, but an article from 2000 indicated that a small percentage was being sold for use in synthetic zeolite-base molecular sieves and in the manufacture of honeycomb catalyst supports. We have no information to indicate that it being sold for those purposes now.
Smaller or lower grade deposits occur in many countries including Japan, Korea, China, Thailand, Indonesia, Australia, South America, and Europe. It is reported that halloysite from China, Brazil, and Turkey is sold commercially. Halloysite is typically used for ceramics and for paper coating and a small percentage of the halloysite from Turkey is sold for use in catalysts.
The degree or extent to which the halloysite from other deposits can or will compete with our halloysite-based products is subject to a variety of factors, including the following:
Deposits of halloysite are formed under a variety of geological conditions of hydrothermal alteration and weathering. As a result, the nature and extent of impurities, the length of the tube, thickness of the walls, and the size of the pore or lumen can all vary. In many deposits, the halloysite is mixed with other clays, limiting its usefulness for certain applications. Other deposits can contain significant amounts of crystalline silica and/or cristobalite, which may limit the usefulness for certain applications and/or require additional processing, although given the fine grain of silica and cristobalite, there are limits to the ability to eliminate them. Other deposits contain more iron oxide than is acceptable, requiring additional processing
Some deposits are subject to difficulties relating to mining. Some deposits are located in geographically isolated areas.
The global resource base for halloysite might be expanded to meet substantial growth in demand, especially if demand was for higher-value markets that would justify higher costs for mining and processing out containments. Such expansion might be anticipated both through the discovery of new deposits and through the adoption of more elaborate process methods to separate halloysite occurring within lower-grade sources. Competition from the other halloysite producers could arise and could adversely affect sales and margins and such competition would be based on performance and/or price.
Competition from Suppliers of Alternative Solutions to Halloysite
When we market halloysite for use in situations where halloysite has not been previously used, or is to be used as an additive in substitution for another additive to enhance certain functionality of an application, we will face competition from suppliers of other solutions and the competition will be based on performance, price and reliability.
Competition for Iron Oxide
We expect to compete with companies that, in some cases, may be larger and better capitalized than us. Because individual iron oxide deposits can differ in significant respects, our iron oxide may not be suitable for certain uses and we may have to demonstrate that our iron oxide will actually work for the manufacturer’s particular need and we can encounter problems in getting manufacturers to test our product and even if such tests are successful, to use our iron oxide.
There is significant competition within the iron oxide pigment market. We will try to compete directly with established synthetic iron oxide pigments in the coatings markets by selling our pigments at a lower price. In other iron oxide pigment markets, there can be very little product differentiation with competition focused primarily on price, performance and reliability.
Publicly Traded Peers of Applied Minerals Inc
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Applied Minerals Inc | 0.03 | 0.60 |
| Nucor Corporation | 55,865.97 | 36,101.00 |
| Steel Dynamics Inc | 33,312.32 | 20,538.68 |
| Reliance Inc | 20,349.38 | 14,835.60 |
| Scandium International Mining Corp | 7,868.08 | 0.28 |
| Commercial Metals Company | 7,204.49 | 8,850.09 |
| SUBTOTAL | 133,901.81 | 105,760.04 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Applied Minerals Inc .
Sources: Applied Minerals Inc's official press releases and regulatory filings; CSIMarket.com's market research; and the financial filings and press releases of the other companies cited.
Updated on:
Focus of this report: publicly traded companies. Ten additional tables on Applied Minerals Inc versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Applied Minerals Inc's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Alternative Solutions | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Applied Minerals Inc's named competitors require a Commercial License.
Methodology: relationships are extracted from SEC filings (named-competitor disclosures) and corroborating sources. Named by the company = explicitly disclosed as a competitor; Inferred = derived from corroborating signals. Confidence reflects evidence strength.
Applied Minerals Inc's Business Segment Mix vs Peers
Revenue by operating segment or division, as named and reported by each company. Segment names are the filer's own and are not standardized across companies. Do not assume a same-named or similarly-named segment is defined identically between two companies. Shares are of each company's own total revenue and are not required to sum to 100% (intersegment revenue, unallocated items).| Company | Largest Segment |
|---|---|
| Nucor Corporation | Steel mills 63.56 % |
| Reliance Inc | Metals Service Centers Segment 100.00 % |
| Commercial Metals Company | North America Steel Group 72.06 % |
| Cleveland cliffs Inc | Steelmaking 97.51 % |
Source: operating segment revenue as reported in each company's SEC filings (10-K/10-Q), via the CSIMarket API, leaf-level reportable segments only (parent roll-up segments are excluded where sub-segments are separately disclosed).
Applied Minerals Inc's Productivity vs Peers Comparison
Revenue and income per employee, trailing 12 months, in $; market cap in millions of $| Company | Market Cap | Revenue / Employee | Income / Employee |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applied Minerals Inc | 0 | 18,902 | -71,300 |
| Nucor Corporation | 55,866 | 1,093,970 | 98,667 |
| Steel Dynamics Inc | 33,312 | 1,426,297 | 111,065 |
| Reliance Inc | 20,349 | 944,943 | 51,382 |
| Scandium International Mining Corp | 7,868 | 55,444 | -73,769 |
| Commercial Metals Company | 7,204 | 697,406 | 61,777 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 133,902 | 1,047,611 | 56,918 |
Sign in to see all peers for Applied Minerals Inc .
Applied Minerals Inc's Geographic Revenue Exposure vs Peers
Revenue by country/region as reported in each company's most recent filing. Disclosure granularity varies by filer (some report by country, others by broad region) and is shown as disclosed.| Company | Largest Market |
|---|---|
| Steel Dynamics Inc | US 92.24 % |
| Ryerson Holding Corporation | US 92.82 % |
Source: revenue geography as reported in each company's SEC filings (10-K/10-Q), via the CSIMarket API. Percentages are of that company's own total consolidated revenue for its most recent reported period.
Applied Minerals Inc's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Construction Raw Materials industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (45 companies). See the full Construction Raw Materials industry profitability benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 100.00 % | 29.19 % (avg) | +70.8 pp |
| Operating Margin | -324.22 % | industry median | -330.1 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | -176.25 % | 8.38 % (avg) | -184.6 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 0.00 % | 12.01 % (avg) | -12.0 pp |
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. SG&A and R&D as a share of revenue have limited coverage as this data is backfilled and appear only where reported. Higher capital intensity is not inherently negative; it reflects the industry's asset requirements.
Applied Minerals Inc's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Construction Raw Materials industry average (45 companies, excluding loss-making/negative-equity outliers), alongside returns on capital for context on whether a premium or discount lines up with measurably stronger or weaker returns. See the full Construction Raw Materials industry valuation benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | - | 26.6x | - |
| EV / EBITDA | - | 14.0x | - |
| P/B | 0.0x | 2.6x | -2.7x |
| Return on Equity | 4.48 % | industry aggregate | -7.25 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 2.98 % | 0.69 % (avg) | 2.29 % |
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. A valuation premium or discount is not, by itself, a judgment of over- or under-valuation. Compare it against the return and growth context shown elsewhere on this page.
Applied Minerals Inc's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in SEC filings.| Metric | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | 116.66 % | 500.00 % | -39.08 % | 99.34 % | -90.03 % | 80.88 % | 60.27 % |
| Operating Margin | -1,954.15 % | -113.63 % | -214.25 % | -41.06 % | -831.90 % | -322.31 % | -148.51 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 214.08 % | 34.65 % | 20.45 % | 5.42 % | 9.59 % | 5.89 % | 3.98 % |
| P/E | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Source: CSIMarket API, fiscal-year figures. P/E is this company's own historical ratio at each fiscal year end and can swing sharply around an earnings trough: that is real, not a data error.
Applied Minerals Inc's Strategic Group Map
Every company in Applied Minerals Inc's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. Applied Minerals Inc is shown in red; its closest peers by combined growth, margin and ROIC (the Similar Growth & Profitability group above) are labeled.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. Extreme outlier values (from near-zero-revenue companies) are excluded from the plotted cloud but never from the highlighted company or its labeled peers.
Applied Minerals Inc's Competitive Forces (Porter's Five Forces)
Only the forces this data can support honestly are shown; the other three are marked as such rather than guessed.| Force | Assessment | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Barriers to Entry | Lower than typical for the industry | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 0.00 % vs industry average 12.01 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Applied Minerals Inc's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Applied Minerals Inc's dedicated customers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Threat of Substitutes | - | No systematic data source for cross-product substitution exists in this system; not estimated |
Note: this is a partial, data-grounded application of the framework, not a complete strategic assessment. Rivalry and barriers-to-entry readings are mechanical translations of the HHI and capital-intensity figures shown elsewhere on this page, not independent judgments.
Applied Minerals Inc's Industry Attractiveness & Competitive Strength
A CSIMarket composite, not a standard field: each axis is an equal-weighted average of three factors already shown elsewhere on this page (industry growth, industry profitability and rivalry for attractiveness; relative market share, profitability and growth vs industry for strength). Disclosed as a designed methodology, not a precision measurement.
Applied Minerals Inc falls in the Low attractiveness / Low strength cell: Harvest / Divest.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. Each axis score is a simple 1(low)/2(medium)/3(high) average across its three inputs -- a transparent, disclosed simplification, not a validated academic scoring model.
Applied Minerals Inc's SWOT
Every point below is a fixed rule applied to a metric already shown elsewhere on this page (Market Structure, Profitability, Valuation, Run-Rate, Stock Performance, Quality Breadth) not an independent strategic assessment. A blank quadrant means no rule was met, not that none apply.Strengths
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+46.9% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
Weaknesses
- Operating margin 330.1 points below the industry median.
- Return on equity 7.3 points below the industry aggregate.
Opportunities
No rule matched.
Threats
- Tracked peer group's revenue run-rate is broadly decelerating (-49.8% annualized).
Methodology: mechanical, rule-based SWOT. Each bullet reuses a figure already sourced and cited elsewhere on this page; nothing here is generated narrative or independent analyst judgment.
Applied Minerals Inc's Financial Strength vs Peers Comparison
Quick ratio, working capital, debt to equity and asset turnover, trailing 12 months| Company | Quick Ratio | Working Capital | Debt / Equity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applied Minerals Inc | 0.01 | 0.03 | - |
| Nucor Corporation | 0.52 | 2.76 | 0.31 |
| Steel Dynamics Inc | 0.31 | 3.12 | 0.46 |
| Reliance Inc | 0.23 | 4.15 | 0.21 |
| Scandium International Mining Corp | 3.90 | 4.01 | - |
| Commercial Metals Company | 0.58 | 2.55 | 0.74 |
Sign in to see all peers for Applied Minerals Inc .
Quick ratio = cash / current liabilities; working capital ratio = current assets / current liabilities; asset turnover = revenue / total assets. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Applied Minerals Inc's Revenue and Income Growth vs Peers
Quarterly revenue and net income growth, year over year and quarter over quarter| Company | Period | Revenue Y/Y | Income Y/Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applied Minerals Inc | Q3 2020 | -69.0 % | - |
| Nucor Corporation | Q2 2026 | +23.0 % | +81.3 % |
| Steel Dynamics Inc | Q2 2026 | +33.4 % | +76.2 % |
| Reliance Inc | Q1 2026 | +15.5 % | +32.5 % |
| Scandium International Mining Corp | Q3 2024 | - | - |
| Commercial Metals Company | Q2 2026 | +22.9 % | +335.3 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +22.7 % | +186.3 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Applied Minerals Inc .
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Applied Minerals Inc's Peers' Costs of Sales and Capital Expenditures
Context for revenue growth: peer costs and capex, year over year and quarter over quarter| Company | Period | Costs Y/Y | Capex Y/Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applied Minerals Inc | Q3 2020 | - | - |
| Nucor Corporation | Q2 2026 | +15.6 % | -40.1 % |
| Steel Dynamics Inc | Q2 2026 | +30.0 % | -57.0 % |
| Reliance Inc | Q1 2026 | +16.4 % | -26.1 % |
| Scandium International Mining Corp | Q3 2024 | - | - |
| Commercial Metals Company | Q2 2026 | +17.9 % | +74.6 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Applied Minerals Inc .
Applied Minerals Inc's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applied Minerals Inc | - | - | - |
| Nucor Corporation | 9.14% | 9.96% | 14.49% |
| Steel Dynamics Inc | 9.66% | 10.53% | 17.76% |
| Reliance Inc | 7.64% | 8.27% | 11.18% |
| Scandium International Mining Corp | - | - | - |
| Commercial Metals Company | 9.30% | 9.96% | 18.10% |
Sign in to see all peers for Applied Minerals Inc .
ROA = net income / total assets; ROI = net income / investments; ROE = net income / equity; turnover ratios use trailing 12 month revenue (receivables) and cost of sales (inventory).
Applied Minerals Inc's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Applied Minerals Inc | - | 0.05 |
| Nucor Corporation | 19.51 | 1.55 |
| Steel Dynamics Inc | 20.94 | 1.62 |
| Reliance Inc | 25.57 | 1.37 |
| Scandium International Mining Corp | - | 28,382.19 |
| Commercial Metals Company | 12.19 | 0.81 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 23.31 | 1.27 |
Sign in to see all peers for Applied Minerals Inc .
P/E = price / diluted EPS (trailing 12 months); PEG = P/E divided by EPS growth; the average row divides the peers' combined market cap by their combined income, sales, cash flow and equity.
