UL vs PG

For growth investors, Unilever PLC (UL) is the stronger pick with 1.

9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 0. 3% for The Procter & Gamble Company (PG). Unilever PLC (UL) offers the better valuation at 21. 8x trailing P/E (18. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate The Procter & Gamble Company (PG) a "Buy" — based on 52 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, Unilever PLC (UL) is the cheapest at 21.

8x versus The Procter & Gamble Company at 22. 3x. On forward P/E, Unilever PLC is actually cheaper at 18. 5x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: The Procter & Gamble Company wins at 3. 75x versus Unilever PLC's 13. 53x.

Over the past 5 years, The Procter & Gamble Company (PG) delivered a total return of +23.

1%, compared to +17. 2% for Unilever PLC (UL). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PG returned +120. 1% versus UL's +74. 7%. 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), Unilever PLC (UL) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

05β versus The Procter & Gamble Company's 0. 10β — meaning PG is approximately 104% more volatile than UL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, The Procter & Gamble Company (PG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 68% versus 136% for Unilever PLC — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Unilever PLC (UL) is pulling ahead at 1.

9% versus 0. 3% for The Procter & Gamble Company (PG). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Procter & Gamble Company grew EPS 8. 1% year-over-year, compared to -10. 5% for Unilever PLC. Over a 3-year CAGR, UL leads at 5. 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.

The Procter & Gamble Company (PG) is the more profitable company, earning 19.

0% net margin versus 9. 5% for Unilever PLC — meaning it keeps 19. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: PG leads at 24. 3% versus 15. 5% for UL. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — UL leads at 100. 0%, 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.

The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.

By this metric, The Procter & Gamble Company (PG) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 3. 75x versus Unilever PLC's 13. 53x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Unilever PLC (UL) trades at 18. 5x forward P/E versus 21. 0x for The Procter & Gamble Company — 2. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for UL: 12. 2% to $65. 55.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Unilever PLC (UL) offers the highest yield at 3. 4%, versus 2. 8% for The Procter & Gamble Company (PG).

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

05), 3. 4% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (UL: +74. 7%, PG: +120. 1%), 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 Consumer Defensive sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

In terms of investment character: UL is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; PG is a large-cap quality compounder stock. 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.