Chemicals - Specialty
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
MTX vs ECL vs IFF vs HWKN vs IOSP
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Chemicals - Specialty
Chemicals - Specialty
Chemicals - Specialty
Chemicals - Specialty
MTX vs ECL vs IFF vs HWKN vs IOSP — 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 | $2.46B | $74.40B | $21.18B | $3.47B | $1.92B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $2.13B | $16.08B | $10.79B | $1.06B | $1.78B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $162M | $2.08B | $839M | $82M | $117M |
| Gross Margin | 18.7% | 44.5% | 35.1% | 22.9% | 27.7% |
| Operating Margin | 13.1% | 17.7% | 8.0% | 11.5% | 8.7% |
| Forward P/E | 12.8x | 31.5x | 18.9x | 42.3x | 15.7x |
| Total Debt | $1.05B | $9.43B | $6.65B | $160M | $90M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $329M | $646M | $590M | $5M | $293M |
MTX vs ECL vs IFF vs HWKN vs IOSP — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minerals Technologi… (MTX) | 100 | 160.8 | +60.8% |
| Ecolab Inc. (ECL) | 100 | 123.9 | +23.9% |
| International Flavo… (IFF) | 100 | 62.3 | -37.7% |
| Hawkins, Inc. (HWKN) | 100 | 779.1 | +679.1% |
| Innospec Inc. (IOSP) | 100 | 100.8 | +0.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: MTX vs ECL vs IFF vs HWKN vs IOSP
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
MTX ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +52.1% vs IOSP's -14.2%
ECL carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 12 yrs, beta 0.63, yield 1.0%
- 12.9% margin vs IOSP's 6.6%
- Beta 0.63 vs HWKN's 0.98
- 8.8% ROA vs IFF's 3.3%, ROIC 12.7% vs 3.5%
Among these 5 stocks, IFF doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
HWKN is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 6.0%, EPS growth 12.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 8.0%
- 7.9% 10Y total return vs ECL's 142.1%
- 6.0% revenue growth vs IFF's -5.2%
IOSP is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if sleep-well-at-night and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.70, Low D/E 6.3%, current ratio 2.79x
- PEG 0.49 vs HWKN's 1.71
- Beta 0.70, yield 2.2%, current ratio 2.79x
- Lower P/E (15.7x vs 42.3x), PEG 0.49 vs 1.71
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 6.0% revenue growth vs IFF's -5.2% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (15.7x vs 42.3x), PEG 0.49 vs 1.71 | |
| Quality / Margins | 12.9% margin vs IOSP's 6.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.63 vs HWKN's 0.98 | |
| Dividends | 2.2% yield, 12-year raise streak, vs MTX's 0.6% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +52.1% vs IOSP's -14.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 8.8% ROA vs IFF's 3.3%, ROIC 12.7% vs 3.5% |
MTX vs ECL vs IFF vs HWKN vs IOSP — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
MTX vs ECL vs IFF vs HWKN vs IOSP — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
IOSP leads in 2 of 6 categories
ECL leads 1 • HWKN leads 1 • MTX leads 0 • IFF leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ECL leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ECL is the larger business by revenue, generating $16.1B annually — 15.1x HWKN's $1.1B. ECL is the more profitable business, keeping 12.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to IOSP's 6.6%. On growth, MTX holds the edge at +11.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $2.1B | $16.1B | $10.8B | $1.1B | $1.8B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $354M | $3.5B | $1.7B | $172M | $198M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $162M | $2.1B | $839M | $82M | $117M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $118M | $1.9B | $400M | $88M | $88M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +18.7% | +44.5% | +35.1% | +22.9% | +27.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +13.1% | +17.7% | +8.0% | +11.5% | +8.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +7.6% | +12.9% | +7.8% | +7.8% | +6.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +5.6% | +11.8% | +3.7% | +8.2% | +4.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +11.2% | +4.8% | -3.6% | +7.9% | -2.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +125.9% | +19.3% | +116.6% | -4.2% | +167.7% |
Valuation Metrics
IOSP leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 16.6x trailing earnings, IOSP trades at a 60% valuation discount to HWKN's 41.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), IOSP offers better value at 0.52x vs HWKN's 1.67x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $2.5B | $74.4B | $21.2B | $3.5B | $1.9B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $3.2B | $83.2B | $27.2B | $3.6B | $1.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -134.39x | 36.18x | -56.80x | 41.47x | 16.63x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 12.80x | 31.46x | 18.90x | 42.34x | 15.66x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | 1.67x | 0.52x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 8.11x | 23.20x | 13.89x | 22.75x | 8.37x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.19x | 4.63x | 1.95x | 3.56x | 1.08x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.42x | 7.66x | 1.50x | 7.60x | 1.37x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 28.43x | 39.07x | 82.75x | 49.51x | 21.87x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — HWKN and IOSP each lead in 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ECL delivers a 22.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $22 in annual profit, vs $6 for IFF. IOSP carries lower financial leverage with a 0.06x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to ECL's 0.96x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), HWKN scores 6/9 vs MTX's 4/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +12.6% | +22.0% | +5.9% | +15.9% | +8.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +6.2% | +8.8% | +3.3% | +8.4% | +6.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +8.7% | +12.7% | +3.5% | +15.9% | +10.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +9.7% | +15.8% | +4.4% | +19.3% | +11.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.60x | 0.96x | 0.47x | 0.35x | 0.06x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $717M | $8.8B | $6.1B | $155M | -$203M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $329M | $646M | $590M | $5M | $293M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.0B | $9.4B | $6.7B | $160M | $90M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 8.09x | 9.82x | 5.26x | 10.27x | — |
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 $49,819 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,506 for IFF. Over the past 12 months, MTX leads with a +52.1% total return vs IOSP's -14.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors HWKN at 61.2% vs IOSP's -5.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +29.9% | +0.6% | +22.5% | +15.2% | +1.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +52.1% | +5.4% | +6.7% | +40.5% | -14.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +30.6% | +56.7% | -8.4% | +319.1% | -16.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -2.0% | +20.3% | -34.9% | +398.2% | -17.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +38.1% | +142.1% | -7.7% | +790.6% | +83.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +9.3% | +16.2% | -2.9% | +61.2% | -5.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — ECL and IFF each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ECL is the less volatile stock with a 0.63 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than HWKN's 0.98 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. IFF currently trades 98.5% from its 52-week high vs IOSP's 81.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.94x | 0.63x | 0.68x | 0.98x | 0.70x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $80.99 | $309.27 | $84.19 | $186.15 | $95.55 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $51.87 | $249.04 | $59.14 | $115.35 | $65.58 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +97.9% | +85.2% | +98.5% | +89.8% | +81.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 70.7 | 38.4 | 47.3 | 62.8 | 61.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 193K | 1.4M | 1.6M | 169K | 223K |
Analyst Outlook
IOSP leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: MTX as "Buy", ECL as "Buy", IFF as "Buy", HWKN as "Buy", IOSP as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 48.1% upside for IOSP (target: $115) vs -14.2% for MTX (target: $68). For income investors, IOSP offers the higher dividend yield at 2.18% vs HWKN's 0.42%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $68.00 | $327.11 | $87.75 | — | $115.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 10 | 37 | 33 | 1 | 9 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.6% | +1.0% | +1.9% | +0.4% | +2.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 12 | 0 | 5 | 12 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.45 | $2.64 | $1.60 | $0.70 | $1.70 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.4% | +1.1% | +0.2% | +0.7% | 0.0% |
IOSP leads in 2 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Analyst Outlook). ECL leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
MTX vs ECL vs IFF vs HWKN vs IOSP: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is MTX or ECL or IFF or HWKN or IOSP a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Hawkins, Inc.
(HWKN) is the stronger pick with 6. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -5. 2% for International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (IFF). Innospec Inc. (IOSP) offers the better valuation at 16. 6x trailing P/E (15. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Minerals Technologies Inc. (MTX) a "Buy" — based on 10 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 — MTX or ECL or IFF or HWKN or IOSP?
On trailing P/E, Innospec Inc.
(IOSP) is the cheapest at 16. 6x versus Hawkins, Inc. at 41. 5x. On forward P/E, Minerals Technologies Inc. is actually cheaper at 12. 8x — 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: Innospec Inc. wins at 0. 49x versus Hawkins, Inc. 's 1. 71x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — MTX or ECL or IFF or HWKN or IOSP?
Over the past 5 years, Hawkins, Inc.
(HWKN) delivered a total return of +398. 2%, compared to -34. 9% for International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (IFF). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: HWKN returned +790. 6% versus IFF's -7. 7%. 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 — MTX or ECL or IFF or HWKN or IOSP?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Ecolab Inc.
(ECL) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 63β versus Hawkins, Inc. 's 0. 98β — meaning HWKN is approximately 57% more volatile than ECL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Innospec Inc. (IOSP) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 6% versus 96% for Ecolab Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — MTX or ECL or IFF or HWKN or IOSP?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Hawkins, Inc.
(HWKN) is pulling ahead at 6. 0% versus -5. 2% for International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (IFF). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Innospec Inc. grew EPS 228. 9% year-over-year, compared to -253. 7% for International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.. 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 — MTX or ECL or IFF or HWKN or IOSP?
Ecolab Inc.
(ECL) is the more profitable company, earning 12. 9% net margin versus -3. 4% for International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. — meaning it keeps 12. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ECL leads at 18. 1% versus 8. 8% for IOSP. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ECL leads at 44. 5%, 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 MTX or ECL or IFF or HWKN or IOSP 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. 49x versus Hawkins, Inc. 's 1. 71x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Minerals Technologies Inc. (MTX) trades at 12. 8x forward P/E versus 42. 3x for Hawkins, Inc. — 29. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for IOSP: 48. 1% to $115. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — MTX or ECL or IFF or HWKN or IOSP?
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 MTX or ECL or IFF or HWKN or IOSP better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Ecolab Inc.
(ECL) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 63), 1. 0% yield, +142. 1% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ECL: +142. 1%, HWKN: +790. 6%), 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 MTX and ECL and IFF and HWKN and IOSP?
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: MTX is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ECL is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; IFF is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; HWKN is a small-cap quality compounder stock; IOSP is a small-cap deep-value stock. MTX, ECL, IFF, IOSP 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.