MATX vs INSW

For growth investors, Matson, Inc.

(MATX) is the stronger pick with -2. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -11. 4% for International Seaways, Inc. (INSW). Matson, Inc. (MATX) offers the better valuation at 13. 2x trailing P/E (13. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Matson, Inc. (MATX) a "Buy" — based on 11 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, Matson, Inc.

(MATX) is the cheapest at 13. 2x versus International Seaways, Inc. at 13. 8x. On forward P/E, International Seaways, Inc. is actually cheaper at 8. 1x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, International Seaways, Inc.

(INSW) delivered a total return of +422. 1%, compared to +186. 0% for Matson, Inc. (MATX). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: INSW returned +970. 0% versus MATX's +493. 0%. 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 Seaways, Inc.

(INSW) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 43β versus Matson, Inc. 's 1. 76β — meaning MATX is approximately 309% more volatile than INSW relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Matson, Inc. (MATX) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 26% versus 29% for International Seaways, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Matson, Inc.

(MATX) is pulling ahead at -2. 3% versus -11. 4% for International Seaways, Inc. (INSW). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Matson, Inc. grew EPS -0. 4% year-over-year, compared to -25. 7% for International Seaways, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, INSW leads at -0. 8% 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.

International Seaways, Inc.

(INSW) is the more profitable company, earning 36. 7% net margin versus 13. 3% for Matson, Inc. — meaning it keeps 36. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: INSW leads at 36. 3% versus 14. 0% for MATX. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — INSW leads at 42. 3%, 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, International Seaways, Inc.

(INSW) trades at 8. 1x forward P/E versus 13. 7x for Matson, Inc. — 5. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MATX: 3. 4% to $190. 00.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

International Seaways, Inc. (INSW) offers the highest yield at 3. 4%, versus 0. 8% for Matson, Inc. (MATX).

For long-horizon retirement investors, International Seaways, Inc.

(INSW) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 43), 3. 4% yield, +970. 0% 10Y return). Matson, Inc. (MATX) carries a higher beta of 1. 76 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (INSW: +970. 0%, MATX: +493. 0%), 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 (MATX (Industrials) and INSW (Energy)), 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.