FUL vs IFF vs SHW vs AVNT vs RPM

For growth investors, The Sherwin-Williams Company (SHW) is the stronger pick with 2.

1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -5. 2% for International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (IFF). RPM International Inc. (RPM) offers the better valuation at 19. 0x trailing P/E (18. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate H. B. Fuller Company (FUL) a "Buy" — based on 15 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, RPM International Inc.

(RPM) is the cheapest at 19. 0x versus Avient Corporation at 41. 0x. On forward P/E, Avient Corporation is actually cheaper at 12. 0x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: RPM International Inc. wins at 1. 03x versus H. B. Fuller Company's 4. 14x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.

Over the past 5 years, The Sherwin-Williams Company (SHW) delivered a total return of +16.

1%, compared to -38. 1% for International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (IFF). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: SHW returned +250. 0% versus IFF's -12. 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), International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.

(IFF) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 68β versus H. B. Fuller Company's 1. 20β — meaning FUL is approximately 78% more volatile than IFF relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (IFF) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 47% versus 3% for The Sherwin-Williams Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), The Sherwin-Williams Company (SHW) is pulling ahead at 2.

1% versus -5. 2% for International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (IFF). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: H. B. Fuller Company grew EPS 19. 6% year-over-year, compared to -253. 7% for International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, RPM leads at 3. 2% 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 Sherwin-Williams Company (SHW) is the more profitable company, earning 10.

9% net margin versus -3. 4% for International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. — meaning it keeps 10. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: SHW leads at 16. 1% versus 6. 2% for AVNT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — SHW leads at 48. 9%, 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, RPM International Inc. (RPM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 03x versus H. B. Fuller Company's 4. 14x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Avient Corporation (AVNT) trades at 12. 0x forward P/E versus 27. 3x for The Sherwin-Williams Company — 15. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for AVNT: 32. 6% to $48. 40.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Avient Corporation (AVNT) offers the highest yield at 2. 9%, versus 1. 0% for The Sherwin-Williams Company (SHW).

For long-horizon retirement investors, The Sherwin-Williams Company (SHW) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

79), 1. 0% yield, +250. 0% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (SHW: +250. 0%, AVNT: +27. 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.