DAR vs GPRE vs REX

For growth investors, Darling Ingredients Inc.

(DAR) is the stronger pick with 7. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -22. 9% for REX American Resources Corporation (REX). REX American Resources Corporation (REX) offers the better valuation at 29. 5x trailing P/E (62. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Darling Ingredients Inc. (DAR) a "Buy" — based on 25 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On trailing P/E, REX American Resources Corporation (REX) is the cheapest at 29.

5x versus Darling Ingredients Inc. at 159. 6x. On forward P/E, Darling Ingredients Inc. is actually cheaper at 15. 1x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, REX American Resources Corporation (REX) delivered a total return of +250.

0%, compared to -48. 5% for Green Plains Inc. (GPRE). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: REX returned +464. 7% versus GPRE's +21. 3%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), REX American Resources Corporation (REX) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

36β versus Green Plains Inc. 's 1. 22β — meaning GPRE is approximately 234% more volatile than REX relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, REX American Resources Corporation (REX) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 3% versus 87% for Darling Ingredients Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Darling Ingredients Inc.

(DAR) is pulling ahead at 7. 4% versus -22. 9% for REX American Resources Corporation (REX). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: REX American Resources Corporation grew EPS -4. 9% year-over-year, compared to -77. 5% for Darling Ingredients Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, DAR leads at -2. 0% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

REX American Resources Corporation (REX) is the more profitable company, earning 9.

1% net margin versus -5. 8% for Green Plains Inc. — meaning it keeps 9. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: REX leads at 10. 0% versus -4. 0% for GPRE. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — DAR leads at 15. 8%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

On forward earnings alone, Darling Ingredients Inc.

(DAR) trades at 15. 1x forward P/E versus 62. 8x for REX American Resources Corporation — 47. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for REX: 23. 3% to $60. 00.

None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.

All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, REX American Resources Corporation (REX) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

36), +464. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (REX: +464. 7%, GPRE: +21. 3%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

These companies operate in different sectors (DAR (Consumer Defensive) and GPRE (Basic Materials) and REX (Basic Materials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.