Cleveland-Cliffs (CLF)
NYSEMaterialsSteelSnapshot 2026-09-04
$12.50+1.79%
Close 2026-09-04 · 1-day change
NYSEMaterialsSteelSnapshot 2026-09-04
QuarterlyIQ Insights · CLF
Price, fair value, and the multiples that frame it on the same time axis. Scroll over the price chart to zoom.
Daily closes. Earnings/event dots inline.
A consensus fair price across 4 valuation methods, at three horizons. As of 2026-09-04. Estimates are diagnostics, not price targets. Short-horizon estimates are close to coin-flips, so confidence is a method-agreement read, not a prediction.
Today's peer multiple on trailing earnings, with no growth credited. This is the headline read.
Adds projected growth, so it leans optimistic by design. Read it as upside context, not a base case.
We take the 12-month fair value above and grade our own number — how the market prices this name versus what we'd justify, and where the two diverge.
At $12 CLF trades at 0.4× p/s, below its 1.5× p/s peer median, but our blended $8.72 fair value sits well below the price. We hold it with low confidence: its earnings are too depressed to value on P/E (we anchor on sales instead) and the peer anchor overstates how cheap it looks. Analysts target $9.00–$16. Note: our $8.72 fair value sits below the entire analyst range ($9.00–$16). Not investment advice.
One valuation read at a 12-month horizon, plus how price compares to peers and the company's own history.
The price sits about 43% above a flat-multiple fair value, while analysts forecast about 11% growth — well above our forecast. This describes what's priced in, not a forecast of the move.
TTM earnings are negative, so the read leans on sales- and cash-flow-based methods rather than P/E. This is a data condition, not a forward call.
Score 100 = cheapest in the cohort, 0 = richest. Bars are filled left-to-right based on the peer-relative score (or PEG/self-history where shown).
Each method's implied share price per horizon. Provisional rows use a projected (historical-CAGR) growth input rather than analyst or management guidance.
| Method | Horizon | Est. price | Multiple | Per-share input | EPS source | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| analyst target | 12M | $12.00 | — | — | Analyst | high |
| Peer EV/EBITDA | 12M | $5.21 | 12.2 | 0.42 | TTM | high |
| Peer P/E | 12M | $5.45 | 15.0 | 0.36 | ntm analyst | high |
| Peer P/S | 12M | $50.14 | 1.5 | 33.62 | TTM | high |
| Peer P/E | 3Y |
A “consensus-then vs. actual-now” overlay is on the way — what our valuation estimate said on a past date versus where the price actually landed.
Not investment advice. Scores describe historical and current data; they are not forecasts of future returns. Consult a licensed advisor before making investment decisions.
A long-thesis check that carries the widest uncertainty of the three horizons.
Below average on quality vs scored peers
Direction of the business behind the multiple. Bands are backend reads; trailing-12-month basis.
TTM earnings are negative. P/E-based methods drop out and the estimate leans on sales- and cash-flow-based methods. A data condition, not a forward call.
$9.00 – $15.60 (median $12.00) · 8 analysts · as of 2026-07-24
Only expensive valuation — not the full expensive x weak x turbulent stack. Regime (Mania) does not concentrate fragility.
For similar setups historically (n=20,154): about 33% saw a 20%+ drawdown, and roughly 76% of those did not recover within the year. These are historical base rates for the cohort, not a forecast of this stock.
Looks more expensive than peers.
Self-history needs ~20 months of data.
Trailing four: 2024-Q3, 2025-Q3, 2026-Q1, 2026-Q2
Direction of the business behind the multiple. Bands are backend reads; trailing-12-month basis.
| $12.05 |
| 15.0 |
| 0.80 |
| Hist. CAGR(prov.) |
| medium |
| Peer P/S | 3Y | $68.95 | 1.5 | 46.23 | Analyst | medium |
| Peer P/E | 5Y | $14.82 | 15.0 | 0.99 | Hist. CAGR(prov.) | medium |
| Peer P/S | 5Y | $84.83 | 1.5 | 56.87 | Analyst | medium |