KRT vs PACK

For growth investors, Karat Packaging Inc.

(KRT) is the stronger pick with 10. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 7. 1% for Ranpak Holdings Corp. (PACK). Karat Packaging Inc. (KRT) offers the better valuation at 19. 5x trailing P/E (16. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Karat Packaging Inc. (KRT) a "Buy" — based on 6 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.

Over the past 5 years, Karat Packaging Inc.

(KRT) delivered a total return of +94. 4%, compared to -69. 5% for Ranpak Holdings Corp. (PACK). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: KRT returned +91. 9% versus PACK's -33. 2%. 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), Karat Packaging Inc.

(KRT) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 87β versus Ranpak Holdings Corp. 's 2. 96β — meaning PACK is approximately 241% more volatile than KRT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Karat Packaging Inc. (KRT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 36% versus 80% for Ranpak Holdings Corp. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Karat Packaging Inc.

(KRT) is pulling ahead at 10. 7% versus 7. 1% for Ranpak Holdings Corp. (PACK). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Karat Packaging Inc. grew EPS 4. 7% year-over-year, compared to -73. 1% for Ranpak Holdings Corp.. Over a 3-year CAGR, PACK leads at 6. 6% 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.

Karat Packaging Inc.

(KRT) is the more profitable company, earning 6. 7% net margin versus -9. 7% for Ranpak Holdings Corp. — meaning it keeps 6. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: KRT leads at 8. 8% versus -6. 2% for PACK. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — KRT leads at 36. 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.

Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for PACK: 46.

8% to $9. 38.

In this comparison, KRT (5.

9% yield) pays a dividend. PACK does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Karat Packaging Inc.

(KRT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 87), 5. 9% yield). Ranpak Holdings Corp. (PACK) carries a higher beta of 2. 96 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (KRT: +91. 9%, PACK: -33. 2%), 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 Cyclical sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

In terms of investment character: KRT is a small-cap income-oriented stock; PACK is a small-cap quality compounder stock. KRT pays a dividend while PACK 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.