NGVT vs FUL

For growth investors, H.

B. Fuller Company (FUL) is the stronger pick with -2. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -17. 0% for Ingevity Corporation (NGVT). H. B. Fuller Company (FUL) offers the better valuation at 23. 1x trailing P/E (13. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Ingevity Corporation (NGVT) a "Buy" — based on 13 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 forward P/E, H.

B. Fuller Company is actually cheaper at 13. 5x.

Over the past 5 years, H.

B. Fuller Company (FUL) delivered a total return of -0. 1%, compared to -10. 8% for Ingevity Corporation (NGVT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NGVT returned +111. 0% versus FUL's +50. 6%. 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), H.

B. Fuller Company (FUL) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 18β versus Ingevity Corporation's 1. 27β — meaning NGVT is approximately 8% more volatile than FUL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, H. B. Fuller Company (FUL) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 101% versus 42% for Ingevity Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), H.

B. Fuller Company (FUL) is pulling ahead at -2. 7% versus -17. 0% for Ingevity Corporation (NGVT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Ingevity Corporation grew EPS 61. 1% year-over-year, compared to 19. 6% for H. B. Fuller Company. Over a 3-year CAGR, FUL leads at -2. 5% 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.

H.

B. Fuller Company (FUL) is the more profitable company, earning 4. 4% net margin versus -14. 3% for Ingevity Corporation — meaning it keeps 4. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NGVT leads at 22. 4% versus 11. 5% for FUL. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NGVT leads at 39. 5%, 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, H.

B. Fuller Company (FUL) trades at 13. 5x forward P/E versus 14. 6x for Ingevity Corporation — 1. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FUL: 7. 3% to $68. 25.

In this comparison, FUL (1.

4% yield) pays a dividend. NGVT does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, H.

B. Fuller Company (FUL) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 18), 1. 4% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (FUL: +50. 6%, NGVT: +111. 0%), 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.

FUL pays a dividend while NGVT does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.