EMN vs HUN

For growth investors, Huntsman Corporation (HUN) is the stronger pick with -5.

8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -6. 7% for Eastman Chemical Company (EMN). Eastman Chemical Company (EMN) offers the better valuation at 18. 5x trailing P/E (12. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Eastman Chemical Company (EMN) a "Buy" — based on 35 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.

Over the past 5 years, Eastman Chemical Company (EMN) delivered a total return of -26.

2%, compared to -37. 9% for Huntsman Corporation (HUN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: HUN returned +50. 8% versus EMN's +36. 1%. 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), Eastman Chemical Company (EMN) is the lower-risk stock at 1.

36β versus Huntsman Corporation's 1. 73β — meaning HUN is approximately 28% more volatile than EMN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Eastman Chemical Company (EMN) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 84% versus 92% for Huntsman Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Huntsman Corporation (HUN) is pulling ahead at -5.

8% versus -6. 7% for Eastman Chemical Company (EMN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Huntsman Corporation grew EPS -44. 5% year-over-year, compared to -46. 5% for Eastman Chemical Company. Over a 3-year CAGR, EMN leads at -6. 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.

Eastman Chemical Company (EMN) is the more profitable company, earning 5.

4% net margin versus -4. 8% for Huntsman Corporation — meaning it keeps 5. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: EMN leads at 10. 6% versus -0. 7% for HUN. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — EMN leads at 21. 1%, 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.

Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for EMN: 2.

0% to $77. 29.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Huntsman Corporation (HUN) offers the highest yield at 5. 6%, versus 4. 4% for Eastman Chemical Company (EMN).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Eastman Chemical Company (EMN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (4.

4% yield). Huntsman Corporation (HUN) carries a higher beta of 1. 73 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (EMN: +36. 1%, HUN: +50. 8%), 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.

Both stocks operate in the Basic Materials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

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.