Chemicals - Specialty
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
NGVT vs CBT vs KO vs IOSP vs HWKN
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Chemicals - Specialty
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
Chemicals - Specialty
Chemicals - Specialty
NGVT vs CBT vs KO vs IOSP vs HWKN — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Chemicals - Specialty | Chemicals - Specialty | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic | Chemicals - Specialty | Chemicals - Specialty |
| Market Cap | $2.54B | $4.58B | $355.61B | $2.13B | $3.30B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.21B | $3.58B | $49.28B | $1.79B | $1.08B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-128M | $285M | $13.70B | $114M | $82M |
| Gross Margin | 39.3% | 24.8% | 61.7% | 27.4% | 22.6% |
| Operating Margin | 22.8% | 15.7% | 29.3% | 8.1% | 10.6% |
| Forward P/E | 14.6x | 13.9x | 25.3x | 17.9x | 40.2x |
| Total Debt | $1.24B | $1.22B | $45.49B | $90M | $261M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $78M | $258M | $10.27B | $293M | $4M |
NGVT vs CBT vs KO vs IOSP vs HWKN — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 20 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ingevity Corporation (NGVT) | 100 | 136.9 | +36.9% |
| Cabot Corporation (CBT) | 100 | 236.6 | +136.6% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 184.9 | +84.9% |
| Innospec Inc. (IOSP) | 100 | 112.1 | +12.1% |
| Hawkins, Inc. (HWKN) | 100 | 743.7 | +643.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NGVT vs CBT vs KO vs IOSP vs HWKN
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
NGVT is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if momentum is your priority.
- +66.6% vs IOSP's +1.4%
CBT ranks third and is worth considering specifically for value.
- Lower P/E (13.9x vs 40.2x)
KO carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 56 yrs, beta -0.20, yield 2.5%
- 27.8% margin vs NGVT's -10.6%
- 2.5% yield, 56-year raise streak, vs IOSP's 2.0%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
- 13.1% ROA vs NGVT's -7.3%, ROIC 15.8% vs 14.2%
IOSP is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night and valuation efficiency.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.70, Low D/E 6.7%, current ratio 2.79x
- PEG 0.56 vs HWKN's 2.65
- Beta 0.70, yield 2.0%, current ratio 2.79x
- Beta 0.70 vs NGVT's 1.27, lower leverage
HWKN is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 11.2%, EPS growth -3.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 5.0%
- 6.5% 10Y total return vs KO's 121.1%
- 11.2% revenue growth vs NGVT's -17.0%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 11.2% revenue growth vs NGVT's -17.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (13.9x vs 40.2x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.8% margin vs NGVT's -10.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.70 vs NGVT's 1.27, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.5% yield, 56-year raise streak, vs IOSP's 2.0%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +66.6% vs IOSP's +1.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs NGVT's -7.3%, ROIC 15.8% vs 14.2% |
NGVT vs CBT vs KO vs IOSP vs HWKN — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
NGVT vs CBT vs KO vs IOSP vs HWKN — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
KO leads in 3 of 6 categories
IOSP leads 1 • HWKN leads 1 • NGVT leads 0 • CBT leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO is the larger business by revenue, generating $49.3B annually — 45.5x HWKN's $1.1B. KO is the more profitable business, keeping 27.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to NGVT's -10.6%. On growth, KO holds the edge at +12.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.2B | $3.6B | $49.3B | $1.8B | $1.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $378M | $731M | $15.5B | $187M | $168M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$128M | $285M | $13.7B | $114M | $82M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $246M | $459M | $12.6B | $77M | $86M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +39.3% | +24.8% | +61.7% | +27.4% | +22.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +22.8% | +15.7% | +29.3% | +8.1% | +10.6% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -10.6% | +8.0% | +27.8% | +6.4% | +7.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +20.3% | +12.8% | +25.5% | +4.3% | +7.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -9.2% | -3.4% | +12.1% | +2.8% | +8.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +196.4% | -23.1% | +18.2% | -6.9% | -5.1% |
Valuation Metrics
IOSP leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 14.6x trailing earnings, CBT trades at a 64% valuation discount to HWKN's 40.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), IOSP offers better value at 0.58x vs HWKN's 2.67x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $2.5B | $4.6B | $355.6B | $2.1B | $3.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $3.7B | $5.5B | $390.8B | $1.9B | $3.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -15.61x | 14.56x | 27.18x | 18.54x | 40.50x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 14.60x | 13.88x | 25.27x | 17.93x | 40.24x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 2.43x | 0.58x | 2.67x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 10.05x | 7.14x | 26.39x | 9.39x | 21.24x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.17x | 1.23x | 7.42x | 1.20x | 3.05x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 87.73x | 2.79x | 10.40x | 1.62x | 6.19x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 9.27x | 11.71x | 67.15x | 24.24x | 38.38x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — CBT and KO and IOSP each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KO delivers a 41.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 in annual profit, vs $-156 for NGVT. IOSP carries lower financial leverage with a 0.07x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to NGVT's 41.84x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), KO scores 7/9 vs HWKN's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -156.1% | +16.8% | +41.1% | +8.6% | +16.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -7.3% | +7.4% | +13.1% | +6.3% | +8.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +14.2% | +17.4% | +15.8% | +11.2% | +12.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +17.1% | +21.3% | +17.3% | +11.0% | +14.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 41.84x | 0.71x | 1.33x | 0.07x | 0.49x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.2B | $957M | $35.2B | -$203M | $258M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $78M | $258M | $10.3B | $293M | $4M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.2B | $1.2B | $45.5B | $90M | $261M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -0.86x | 14.72x | 10.70x | — | 8.52x |
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 $49,717 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $8,915 for NGVT. Over the past 12 months, NGVT leads with a +66.6% total return vs IOSP's +1.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors HWKN at 47.3% vs IOSP's -2.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +19.8% | +32.1% | +20.3% | +14.7% | +9.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +66.6% | +17.4% | +17.2% | +1.4% | +19.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +33.4% | +26.6% | +47.0% | -7.8% | +219.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -10.8% | +55.8% | +65.6% | -4.2% | +397.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +111.0% | +119.6% | +121.1% | +105.2% | +649.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +10.1% | +8.2% | +13.7% | -2.7% | +47.3% |
Risk & Volatility
KO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
KO is the less volatile stock with a -0.20 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than NGVT's 1.27 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. KO currently trades 98.3% from its 52-week high vs HWKN's 85.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.27x | 0.82x | -0.20x | 0.70x | 0.97x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $79.05 | $89.46 | $84.04 | $92.14 | $186.15 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $39.74 | $58.33 | $65.35 | $65.58 | $117.98 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +91.1% | +98.0% | +98.3% | +94.0% | +85.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 55.7 | 57.0 | 60.6 | 71.7 | 49.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 211K | 382K | 12.7M | 176K | 144K |
Analyst Outlook
KO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: NGVT as "Buy", CBT as "Buy", KO as "Buy", IOSP as "Hold", HWKN as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 32.8% upside for IOSP (target: $115) vs -1.9% for CBT (target: $86). For income investors, KO offers the higher dividend yield at 2.46% vs HWKN's 0.47%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $76.67 | $86.00 | $86.13 | $115.00 | — |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 13 | 15 | 48 | 9 | 1 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +2.0% | +2.5% | +2.0% | +0.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 14 | 56 | 12 | 15 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.77 | $2.04 | $1.70 | $0.75 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.2% | +3.7% | +0.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
KO leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Risk & Volatility). IOSP leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
NGVT vs CBT vs KO vs IOSP vs HWKN: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NGVT or CBT or KO or IOSP or HWKN a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Hawkins, Inc.
(HWKN) is the stronger pick with 11. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -17. 0% for Ingevity Corporation (NGVT). Cabot Corporation (CBT) offers the better valuation at 14. 6x trailing P/E (13. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Ingevity Corporation (NGVT) a "Buy" — based on 13 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 — NGVT or CBT or KO or IOSP or HWKN?
On trailing P/E, Cabot Corporation (CBT) is the cheapest at 14.
6x versus Hawkins, Inc. at 40. 5x. On forward P/E, Cabot Corporation is actually cheaper at 13. 9x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Innospec Inc. wins at 0. 56x versus Hawkins, Inc. 's 2. 65x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — NGVT or CBT or KO or IOSP or HWKN?
Over the past 5 years, Hawkins, Inc.
(HWKN) delivered a total return of +397. 2%, compared to -10. 8% for Ingevity Corporation (NGVT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: HWKN returned +649. 5% versus IOSP's +105. 2%. 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 — NGVT or CBT or KO or IOSP or HWKN?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus Ingevity Corporation's 1. 27β — meaning NGVT is approximately -737% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Innospec Inc. (IOSP) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 7% versus 42% for Ingevity Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — NGVT or CBT or KO or IOSP or HWKN?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Hawkins, Inc.
(HWKN) is pulling ahead at 11. 2% versus -17. 0% for Ingevity Corporation (NGVT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Innospec Inc. grew EPS 228. 9% year-over-year, compared to -10. 4% for Cabot Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, HWKN leads at 5. 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 — NGVT or CBT or KO or IOSP or HWKN?
The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
3% net margin versus -14. 3% for Ingevity Corporation — meaning it keeps 27. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: KO leads at 28. 7% versus 8. 8% for IOSP. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — KO leads at 61. 6%, 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 NGVT or CBT or KO or IOSP or HWKN 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. 56x versus Hawkins, Inc. 's 2. 65x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Cabot Corporation (CBT) trades at 13. 9x forward P/E versus 40. 2x for Hawkins, Inc. — 26. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for IOSP: 32. 8% to $115. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — NGVT or CBT or KO or IOSP or HWKN?
In this comparison, KO (2.
5% yield), CBT (2. 0% yield), IOSP (2. 0% yield), HWKN (0. 5% yield) pay a dividend. NGVT does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is NGVT or CBT or KO or IOSP or HWKN better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
20), 2. 5% yield, +121. 1% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (KO: +121. 1%, NGVT: +111. 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.
10What are the main differences between NGVT and CBT and KO and IOSP and HWKN?
These companies operate in different sectors (NGVT (Basic Materials) and CBT (Basic Materials) and KO (Consumer Defensive) and IOSP (Basic Materials) and HWKN (Basic Materials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: NGVT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CBT is a small-cap deep-value stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder stock; IOSP is a small-cap quality compounder stock; HWKN is a small-cap quality compounder stock. CBT, KO, IOSP pay a dividend while NGVT, HWKN do 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.