Chemicals - Specialty
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
HWKN vs IOSP vs KWR vs CBT vs BCPC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Chemicals - Specialty
Chemicals - Specialty
Chemicals - Specialty
Chemicals - Specialty
HWKN vs IOSP vs KWR vs CBT vs BCPC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Chemicals - Specialty | Chemicals - Specialty | Chemicals - Specialty | Chemicals - Specialty | Chemicals - Specialty |
| Market Cap | $3.46B | $1.91B | $2.48B | $4.24B | $5.11B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.06B | $1.78B | $1.93B | $3.58B | $1.06B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $82M | $117M | $4M | $285M | $158M |
| Gross Margin | 22.9% | 27.7% | 34.4% | 24.8% | 36.3% |
| Operating Margin | 11.5% | 8.7% | 3.7% | 15.7% | 21.0% |
| Forward P/E | 42.3x | 15.5x | 19.3x | 13.0x | 30.9x |
| Total Debt | $160M | $90M | $929M | $1.22B | $192M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $5M | $293M | $180M | $258M | $75M |
HWKN vs IOSP vs KWR vs CBT vs BCPC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hawkins, Inc. (HWKN) | 100 | 778.6 | +678.6% |
| Innospec Inc. (IOSP) | 100 | 99.4 | -0.6% |
| Quaker Chemical Cor… (KWR) | 100 | 83.7 | -16.3% |
| Cabot Corporation (CBT) | 100 | 227.5 | +127.5% |
| Balchem Corporation (BCPC) | 100 | 158.5 | +58.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: HWKN vs IOSP vs KWR vs CBT vs BCPC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
HWKN is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 7.7% 10Y total return vs BCPC's 160.5%
IOSP is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- Dividend streak 12 yrs, beta 0.70, yield 2.2%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.70, Low D/E 6.7%, current ratio 2.79x
- PEG 0.48 vs BCPC's 2.41
- Beta 0.70, yield 2.2%, current ratio 2.79x
KWR ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +45.1% vs IOSP's -14.9%
CBT is the clearest fit if your priority is value.
- Lower P/E (13.0x vs 30.9x)
BCPC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 8.8%, EPS growth 20.9%, 3Y rev CAGR 3.2%
- 8.8% revenue growth vs CBT's -7.0%
- 15.0% margin vs KWR's 0.2%
- Beta 0.33 vs KWR's 1.35, lower leverage
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 8.8% revenue growth vs CBT's -7.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (13.0x vs 30.9x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 15.0% margin vs KWR's 0.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.33 vs KWR's 1.35, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.2% yield, 12-year raise streak, vs BCPC's 0.5% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +45.1% vs IOSP's -14.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 9.4% ROA vs KWR's 0.2%, ROIC 12.2% vs 6.6% |
HWKN vs IOSP vs KWR vs CBT vs BCPC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
HWKN vs IOSP vs KWR vs CBT vs BCPC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
BCPC leads in 1 of 6 categories
HWKN leads 1 • IOSP leads 1 • KWR leads 0 • CBT leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
BCPC leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CBT is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.6B annually — 3.4x BCPC's $1.1B. BCPC is the more profitable business, keeping 15.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to KWR's 0.2%. On growth, KWR holds the edge at +8.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.1B | $1.8B | $1.9B | $3.6B | $1.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $172M | $198M | $143M | $731M | $267M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $82M | $117M | $4M | $285M | $158M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $88M | $88M | $143M | $459M | $182M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +22.9% | +27.7% | +34.4% | +24.8% | +36.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +11.5% | +8.7% | +3.7% | +15.7% | +21.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +7.8% | +6.6% | +0.2% | +8.0% | +15.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +8.2% | +4.9% | +7.4% | +12.8% | +17.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +7.9% | -2.4% | +8.5% | -3.4% | +8.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -4.2% | +167.7% | +54.8% | -23.1% | +10.6% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — IOSP and CBT each lead in 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 13.5x trailing earnings, CBT trades at a 67% valuation discount to HWKN's 41.4x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), IOSP offers better value at 0.51x vs BCPC's 2.62x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $3.5B | $1.9B | $2.5B | $4.2B | $5.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $3.6B | $1.7B | $3.2B | $5.2B | $5.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 41.44x | 16.41x | -1021.00x | 13.50x | 33.58x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 42.31x | 15.45x | 19.32x | 13.04x | 30.87x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 1.67x | 0.51x | — | — | 2.62x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 22.74x | 8.29x | 11.93x | 6.71x | 19.83x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.55x | 1.07x | 1.31x | 1.14x | 4.92x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 7.60x | 1.44x | 1.81x | 2.58x | 4.14x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 49.48x | 21.68x | 30.74x | 10.86x | 29.51x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — IOSP and CBT and BCPC each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CBT delivers a 16.8% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $17 in annual profit, vs $0 for KWR. IOSP carries lower financial leverage with a 0.07x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CBT's 0.71x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), BCPC scores 9/9 vs KWR's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +15.9% | +9.0% | +0.3% | +16.8% | +12.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +8.4% | +6.5% | +0.2% | +7.4% | +9.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +15.9% | +11.2% | +6.6% | +17.4% | +12.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +19.3% | +11.0% | +7.6% | +21.3% | +14.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 9 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.35x | 0.07x | 0.67x | 0.71x | 0.15x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $155M | -$203M | $749M | $957M | $117M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $5M | $293M | $180M | $258M | $75M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $160M | $90M | $929M | $1.2B | $192M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 10.27x | — | 1.41x | 14.72x | 15.23x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
HWKN leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in HWKN five years ago would be worth $49,115 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,267 for KWR. Over the past 12 months, KWR leads with a +45.1% total return vs IOSP's -14.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors HWKN at 61.2% vs KWR's -11.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +15.1% | +0.5% | +3.6% | +21.9% | +3.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +40.6% | -14.9% | +45.1% | +13.8% | -2.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +318.9% | -17.3% | -30.1% | +22.5% | +26.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +391.1% | -18.3% | -37.3% | +43.2% | +24.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +765.9% | +84.4% | +88.7% | +115.7% | +160.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +61.2% | -6.1% | -11.2% | +7.0% | +8.2% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CBT and BCPC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
BCPC is the less volatile stock with a 0.33 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than KWR's 1.35 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CBT currently trades 96.1% from its 52-week high vs KWR's 78.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.98x | 0.70x | 1.35x | 0.78x | 0.33x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $186.15 | $95.55 | $183.00 | $84.60 | $183.90 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $115.35 | $65.58 | $99.18 | $58.33 | $139.17 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +89.7% | +80.2% | +78.1% | +96.1% | +86.7% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 62.9 | 59.1 | 58.2 | 71.7 | 32.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 169K | 221K | 176K | 374K | 190K |
Analyst Outlook
IOSP leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: HWKN as "Buy", IOSP as "Hold", KWR as "Buy", CBT as "Buy", BCPC as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 50.1% upside for IOSP (target: $115) vs -4.0% for CBT (target: $78). For income investors, IOSP offers the higher dividend yield at 2.21% vs HWKN's 0.42%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $115.00 | $176.33 | $78.00 | $162.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 1 | 9 | 14 | 15 | 10 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.4% | +2.2% | +1.4% | +2.2% | +0.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 5 | 12 | 6 | 4 | 11 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.70 | $1.70 | $1.97 | $1.77 | $0.87 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.7% | 0.0% | +1.7% | +4.0% | +2.1% |
BCPC leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). HWKN leads in 1 (Total Returns). 3 tied.
HWKN vs IOSP vs KWR vs CBT vs BCPC: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is HWKN or IOSP or KWR or CBT or BCPC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Balchem Corporation (BCPC) is the stronger pick with 8.
8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -7. 0% for Cabot Corporation (CBT). Cabot Corporation (CBT) offers the better valuation at 13. 5x trailing P/E (13. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Hawkins, Inc. (HWKN) a "Buy" — based on 1 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.
02Which has the better valuation — HWKN or IOSP or KWR or CBT or BCPC?
On trailing P/E, Cabot Corporation (CBT) is the cheapest at 13.
5x versus Hawkins, Inc. at 41. 4x. On forward P/E, Cabot Corporation is actually cheaper at 13. 0x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Innospec Inc. wins at 0. 48x versus Balchem Corporation's 2. 41x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — HWKN or IOSP or KWR or CBT or BCPC?
Over the past 5 years, Hawkins, Inc.
(HWKN) delivered a total return of +391. 1%, compared to -37. 3% for Quaker Chemical Corporation (KWR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: HWKN returned +765. 9% versus IOSP's +84. 4%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — HWKN or IOSP or KWR or CBT or BCPC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Balchem Corporation (BCPC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
33β versus Quaker Chemical Corporation's 1. 35β — meaning KWR is approximately 308% more volatile than BCPC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Innospec Inc. (IOSP) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 7% versus 71% for Cabot Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — HWKN or IOSP or KWR or CBT or BCPC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Balchem Corporation (BCPC) is pulling ahead at 8.
8% versus -7. 0% for Cabot Corporation (CBT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Innospec Inc. grew EPS 228. 9% year-over-year, compared to -102. 2% for Quaker Chemical Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, HWKN leads at 8. 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.
06Which has better profit margins — HWKN or IOSP or KWR or CBT or BCPC?
Balchem Corporation (BCPC) is the more profitable company, earning 14.
9% net margin versus -0. 1% for Quaker Chemical Corporation — meaning it keeps 14. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BCPC leads at 21. 1% versus 8. 8% for IOSP. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — KWR leads at 36. 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.
07Is HWKN or IOSP or KWR or CBT or BCPC more undervalued right now?
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, Innospec Inc. (IOSP) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 48x versus Balchem Corporation's 2. 41x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Cabot Corporation (CBT) trades at 13. 0x forward P/E versus 42. 3x for Hawkins, Inc. — 29. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for IOSP: 50. 1% to $115. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — HWKN or IOSP or KWR or CBT or BCPC?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Innospec Inc. (IOSP) offers the highest yield at 2. 2%, versus 0. 4% for Hawkins, Inc. (HWKN).
09Is HWKN or IOSP or KWR or CBT or BCPC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Balchem Corporation (BCPC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
33), 0. 5% yield, +160. 5% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (BCPC: +160. 5%, KWR: +88. 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.
10What are the main differences between HWKN and IOSP and KWR and CBT and BCPC?
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.
In terms of investment character: HWKN is a small-cap quality compounder stock; IOSP is a small-cap deep-value stock; KWR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CBT is a small-cap deep-value stock; BCPC is a small-cap quality compounder stock. IOSP, KWR, CBT, BCPC pay a dividend while HWKN 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.