HLN vs CL

For growth investors, Colgate-Palmolive Company (CL) is the stronger pick with 1.

4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -4. 0% for Haleon plc (HLN). Haleon plc (HLN) offers the better valuation at 19. 0x trailing P/E (22. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Haleon plc (HLN) a "Buy" — based on 4 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, Haleon plc (HLN) is the cheapest at 19.

0x versus Colgate-Palmolive Company at 33. 2x. On forward P/E, Haleon plc is actually cheaper at 22. 2x.

Over the past 5 years, Haleon plc (HLN) delivered a total return of +31.

7%, compared to +18. 2% for Colgate-Palmolive Company (CL). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CL returned +47. 0% versus HLN's +31. 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), Colgate-Palmolive Company (CL) is the lower-risk stock at -0.

00β versus Haleon plc's 0. 06β — meaning HLN is approximately -1489% more volatile than CL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Haleon plc (HLN) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 52% versus 22% for Colgate-Palmolive Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Colgate-Palmolive Company (CL) is pulling ahead at 1.

4% versus -4. 0% for Haleon plc (HLN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Haleon plc grew EPS 12. 5% year-over-year, compared to -25. 1% for Colgate-Palmolive Company. Over a 3-year CAGR, CL leads at 4. 3% 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.

Haleon plc (HLN) is the more profitable company, earning 15.

1% net margin versus 10. 5% for Colgate-Palmolive Company — meaning it keeps 15. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: HLN leads at 22. 4% versus 21. 3% for CL. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — HLN leads at 64. 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, Haleon plc (HLN) trades at 22.

2x forward P/E versus 22. 9x for Colgate-Palmolive Company — 0. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for HLN: 9. 6% to $10. 20.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Colgate-Palmolive Company (CL) offers the highest yield at 2. 6%, versus 1. 9% for Haleon plc (HLN).

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

00), 2. 6% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CL: +47. 0%, HLN: +31. 7%), 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 (HLN (Healthcare) and CL (Consumer Defensive)), 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.