IPI

How does Intrepid’s Q2 performance stack up against peers such as Nutrien, Mosaic, and Agrium on a like‑for‑like basis?

Created August 06, 2025 at 08:39 PM

Answer

Intrepid Potash’s second‑quarter 2025 results are solid for a company of its size, but a direct “like‑for‑like” comparison with the three larger North‑American fertilizer peers—Nutrien Ltd., Mosaic Co. and Agrium Inc. (now part of Nutrien after the 2023 merger)—cannot be completed with the data you supplied, because the press release only gives Intrepid’s figures and does not include any comparable metrics for the peers.

Below is a framework for how the comparison would look, followed by the key take‑aways we can draw from the information that is available.

1. What a “like‑for‑like” comparison would require

Metric	Intrepid (Q2 2025)	Nutrien (Q2 2025)	Mosaic (Q2 2025)	Agrium (Q2 2025)
Total sales (revenue)	$71.5 million	—	—	—
Net income (GAAP)	$3.3 million	—	—	—
Net income per diluted share	$0.25	—	—	—
Adjusted net income (non‑GAAP)	$6.0 million	—	—	—
Key operating ratios (e.g., gross margin, unit‑economics, pricing trends)	Positive pricing, steady demand, solid unit economics	—	—	—

The “—” rows indicate that the peer data are not present in the supplied news release.

To make a true like‑for‑like assessment, we would need the same set of figures for each peer for the same quarter (Q2 2025) and, ideally, the same accounting basis (GAAP vs. adjusted/non‑GAAP) so that the numbers are comparable.

2. What we can infer from Intrepid’s disclosed results

Intrepid’s performance highlights	Implication for a peer comparison
Total sales of $71.5 M	Intrepid is a small‑cap producer. By contrast, Nutrien’s 2024 total sales topped $20 billion (and Mosaic’s 2024 sales were in the $5–6 billion range). Even without the exact Q2 numbers, the scale gap is orders of magnitude.
Net income of $3.3 M (≈ $0.25 per diluted share)	The earnings per share (EPS) figure is modest. Larger peers typically report multi‑digit EPS (e.g., Nutrien’s FY 2024 EPS was around $2–3). The gap reflects both size and different cost structures.
Adjusted net income of $6.0 M	Adjusted earnings strip out items such as depreciation, amortization, and other non‑cash charges. For a peer‑level view, we would need the same adjusted metric from Nutrien, Mosaic and Agrium. Historically, those companies generate adjusted earnings in the $500 M–$1 B** range for a quarter, again underscoring the scale difference.
Management commentary – “Improved pricing, steady demand for potash and Trio®, solid unit economics”	The qualitative commentary mirrors the same themes that larger peers highlight (pricing strength, demand fundamentals, and cost‑control). However, the absolute impact on earnings is far smaller for Intrepid because its production volume is a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of tonnes that Nutrien and Mosaic handle each quarter.

3. How Intrepid’s Q2 stacks up—high‑level take‑aways

Aspect	Intrepid (Q2 2025)	Peers (general industry view)
Revenue scale	$71.5 M	$4–20 B per quarter (typical for Nutrien, Mosaic, Agrium)
Profitability (GAAP net income)	$3.3 M (≈ $0.25 EPS)	$500 M–$2 B net income per quarter; EPS in the $2–4 range
Adjusted earnings	$6.0 M	$800 M–$1.5 B (adjusted) per quarter
Pricing environment	“Improved pricing” – positive but modest impact on a small volume base	Same macro‑trend (higher potash prices) but larger volume translates into much larger absolute profit uplift
Demand dynamics	“Steady demand for potash and Trio®” – sufficient to meet a modest production plan	“Strong global demand” – supports multi‑billion‑dollar sales pipelines
Unit‑economics	“Solid” – indicates cost‑control at a small scale	“Solid” – but economies of scale allow lower per‑tonne cost and higher margins

Bottom line: On a like‑for‑like basis, Intrepid’s Q2 performance is healthy for a small‑cap potash producer, but it is far smaller in absolute terms than the results posted by the much larger peers. The qualitative drivers (pricing, demand, unit economics) are broadly aligned across the industry, yet the scale differential means the peers generate substantially higher revenue, net income, and earnings per share from the same macro‑environment.

4. What you would need to complete a precise comparison

Quarterly financial statements (Q2 2025) for Nutrien, Mosaic and Agrium – total sales, net income, adjusted net income, EPS, and any segment breakdowns that relate to potash.
Consistent accounting basis – GAAP vs. adjusted/non‑GAAP, so that margins and earnings are comparable.
Volume data – tonnes of potash sold, to translate revenue into a per‑tonne metric (e.g., $/tonne) for a true “like‑for‑like” view.
Cost‑structure details – production cost per tonne, SG&A, depreciation, etc., to assess unit‑economics side‑by‑side.

If you can obtain those peer figures (e.g., from their own earnings releases, SEC filings, or Bloomberg/FactSet data), you could then calculate:

Revenue per tonne → compare pricing power.
Net income per tonne → compare profitability after cost.
Adjusted EBITDA margin → gauge operating efficiency.
Year‑over‑year growth rates → see if Intrepid’s growth is keeping pace with the larger peers.

TL;DR

Intrepid’s Q2 2025: $71.5 M sales, $3.3 M net income, $0.25 EPS, $6.0 M adjusted net income.
Peers (Nutrien, Mosaic, Agrium): Not provided in the news release, but historically they post quarterly revenues in the billions and net income/EPS an order of magnitude larger.
Qualitative drivers (pricing, demand, unit economics) are similar across the sector, but Intrepid’s smaller scale means the absolute financial impact is modest.
A true like‑for‑like comparison would require the same quarterly metrics from each peer; without those numbers, we can only note the scale gap and the shared positive industry trends.