How does the $4.20 EPS compare to analysts' consensus forecasts and to peer companies in the fertilizer sector?

Bottom‑line answer:

The press release you provided tells us that CF Industries posted first‑half 2025 earnings of $4.20 per diluted share (and a second‑quarter EPS of $2.37). However, the release does not contain any information about:

1. Analysts’ consensus EPS forecasts for the same period, and
   
2. How that $4.20 EPS stacks up against the EPS of other fertilizer‑sector peers (e.g., Nutrien (NTR), Yara International (YAR), K+S (K+S), Mosaic (MOS), etc.

Because the required comparative data are not included in the news article, we cannot directly answer how the $4.20 EPS compares to analyst expectations or to peer performance based solely on the information given.

What would be needed to answer the question fully?

Typical analysis steps (once the data are gathered) would be:

1. Locate the consensus EPS estimate for the first‑half or Q2 of 2025 (e.g., $3.60‑$3.90).
   
   If the $4.20 EPS is above that range, CF Industries would be “ahead of expectations” (e.g., +8–15%).

2. Collect EPS for the peer group for the same period:

   • For example, if Nutrien reported $2.80 EPS, Yara $2.45, K+S $1.90, Mosaic $1.70, then CF Industries’ $4.20 EPS would be markedly higher, indicating either superior operational performance, pricing power, or a more favorable product mix.*

3. Calculate relative performance (e.g., CF’s EPS / average peer EPS).
   
   If the peer‑group average is ~$2.5, CF’s EPS is ~68% higher.

4. Add context:

   • Examine the drivers behind the high EPS (e.g., higher fertilizer prices, cost‑saving initiatives, favorable commodity spreads).
     
   • Compare CF’s profit margins and adjusted EBITDA margins to peers for a more complete picture.

How to obtain the missing data

Take‑away

• The $4.20 EPS figure is available but the article does not contain the analyst consensus or peer‑group EPS numbers needed for a direct comparison.
• To determine how $4.20 stacks up against expectations and peers, you will need to pull consensus EPS forecasts from a financial‑data provider and collect the comparable EPS figures for the main fertilizer competitors for the same reporting period. Once you have those numbers, a simple “actual vs. consensus” and “CF vs‑peer” comparison can be performed, and the result can be expressed as a percentage out‑performance or under‑performance relative to the consensus and peer averages.

If you can supply the analyst consensus figure (or a source where it can be found) and the EPS numbers of the key competitors for the same period, I can provide a precise, quantitative comparison. Otherwise, the answer must remain “insufficient data to compare”.