Chemicals - Specialty
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
NGVT vs IOSP vs FUL vs HWKN
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Chemicals - Specialty
Chemicals - Specialty
Chemicals - Specialty
NGVT vs IOSP vs FUL vs HWKN — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Chemicals - Specialty | Chemicals - Specialty | Chemicals - Specialty | Chemicals - Specialty |
| Market Cap | $2.54B | $2.13B | $3.45B | $3.30B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.21B | $1.79B | $3.47B | $1.08B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-128M | $114M | $152M | $82M |
| Gross Margin | 39.3% | 27.4% | 31.5% | 22.6% |
| Operating Margin | 22.8% | 8.1% | 10.9% | 10.6% |
| Forward P/E | 14.6x | 17.9x | 13.5x | 40.2x |
| Total Debt | $1.24B | $90M | $2.02B | $261M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $78M | $293M | $107M | $4M |
NGVT vs IOSP vs FUL 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% |
| Innospec Inc. (IOSP) | 100 | 112.1 | +12.1% |
| H.B. Fuller Company (FUL) | 100 | 142.7 | +42.7% |
| Hawkins, Inc. (HWKN) | 100 | 743.7 | +643.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NGVT vs IOSP vs FUL vs HWKN
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
NGVT is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +66.6% vs IOSP's +1.4%
IOSP carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 12 yrs, beta 0.70, yield 2.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.70, Low D/E 6.7%, current ratio 2.79x
- PEG 0.56 vs FUL's 4.34
- Beta 0.70, yield 2.0%, current ratio 2.79x
FUL lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
HWKN is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 11.2%, EPS growth -3.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 5.0%
- 6.5% 10Y total return vs NGVT's 111.0%
- 11.2% revenue growth vs NGVT's -17.0%
- 7.5% margin vs NGVT's -10.6%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 11.2% revenue growth vs NGVT's -17.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (17.9x vs 40.2x), PEG 0.56 vs 2.65 | |
| Quality / Margins | 7.5% margin vs NGVT's -10.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.70 vs NGVT's 1.27, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.0% yield, 12-year raise streak, vs FUL's 1.4%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +66.6% vs IOSP's +1.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 8.3% ROA vs NGVT's -7.3%, ROIC 12.3% vs 14.2% |
NGVT vs IOSP vs FUL vs HWKN — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
NGVT vs IOSP vs FUL vs HWKN — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
NGVT leads in 1 of 6 categories
FUL leads 1 • HWKN leads 1 • IOSP leads 1 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NGVT leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FUL is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.5B annually — 3.2x HWKN's $1.1B. HWKN is the more profitable business, keeping 7.5% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to NGVT's -10.6%. On growth, HWKN holds the edge at +8.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.2B | $1.8B | $3.5B | $1.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $378M | $187M | $472M | $168M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$128M | $114M | $152M | $82M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $246M | $77M | $121M | $86M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +39.3% | +27.4% | +31.5% | +22.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +22.8% | +8.1% | +10.9% | +10.6% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -10.6% | +6.4% | +4.4% | +7.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +20.3% | +4.3% | +3.5% | +7.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -9.2% | +2.8% | -3.1% | +8.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +196.4% | -6.9% | +122.2% | -5.1% |
Valuation Metrics
FUL leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 18.5x trailing earnings, IOSP trades at a 54% valuation discount to HWKN's 40.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), IOSP offers better value at 0.58x vs FUL's 7.45x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $2.5B | $2.1B | $3.4B | $3.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $3.7B | $1.9B | $5.4B | $3.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -15.61x | 18.54x | 23.14x | 40.50x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 14.60x | 17.93x | 13.48x | 40.24x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.58x | 7.45x | 2.67x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 10.05x | 9.39x | 9.28x | 21.24x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.17x | 1.20x | 0.99x | 3.05x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 87.73x | 1.62x | 1.76x | 6.19x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 9.27x | 24.24x | 28.44x | 38.38x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — IOSP and HWKN each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
HWKN delivers a 16.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $16 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), FUL scores 7/9 vs HWKN's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -156.1% | +8.6% | +7.6% | +16.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -7.3% | +6.3% | +2.9% | +8.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +14.2% | +11.2% | +7.8% | +12.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +17.1% | +11.0% | +9.2% | +14.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 41.84x | 0.07x | 1.01x | 0.49x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.2B | -$203M | $1.9B | $258M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $78M | $293M | $107M | $4M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.2B | $90M | $2.0B | $261M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -0.86x | — | 2.62x | 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% | +14.7% | +6.2% | +9.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +66.6% | +1.4% | +15.2% | +19.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +33.4% | -7.8% | +1.5% | +219.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -10.8% | -4.2% | -0.1% | +397.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +111.0% | +105.2% | +50.6% | +649.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +10.1% | -2.7% | +0.5% | +47.3% |
Risk & Volatility
IOSP leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
IOSP is the less volatile stock with a 0.70 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. IOSP currently trades 94.0% 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 | 0.70x | 1.18x | 0.97x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $79.05 | $92.14 | $68.63 | $186.15 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $39.74 | $65.58 | $48.71 | $117.98 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +91.1% | +94.0% | +92.7% | +85.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 55.7 | 71.7 | 58.2 | 49.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 211K | 176K | 483K | 144K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — IOSP and FUL each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: NGVT as "Buy", IOSP as "Hold", FUL as "Buy", HWKN as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 32.8% upside for IOSP (target: $115) vs 6.5% for NGVT (target: $77). For income investors, IOSP offers the higher dividend yield at 1.96% vs HWKN's 0.47%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $76.67 | $115.00 | $68.25 | — |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 13 | 9 | 15 | 1 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +2.0% | +1.4% | +0.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 12 | 38 | 15 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.70 | $0.91 | $0.75 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.2% | 0.0% | +1.8% | 0.0% |
NGVT leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). FUL leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
NGVT vs IOSP vs FUL vs HWKN: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NGVT or IOSP or FUL 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). Innospec Inc. (IOSP) offers the better valuation at 18. 5x trailing P/E (17. 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 IOSP or FUL or HWKN?
On trailing P/E, Innospec Inc.
(IOSP) is the cheapest at 18. 5x versus Hawkins, Inc. at 40. 5x. On forward P/E, H. B. Fuller Company is actually cheaper at 13. 5x — 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. 56x versus H. B. Fuller Company's 4. 34x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — NGVT or IOSP or FUL 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 FUL's +50. 6%. 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 IOSP or FUL or HWKN?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Innospec Inc.
(IOSP) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 70β versus Ingevity Corporation's 1. 27β — meaning NGVT is approximately 83% more volatile than IOSP 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 IOSP or FUL 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 -3. 0% for Hawkins, Inc.. 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 IOSP or FUL or HWKN?
Hawkins, Inc.
(HWKN) is the more profitable company, earning 7. 5% net margin versus -14. 3% for Ingevity Corporation — meaning it keeps 7. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NGVT leads at 22. 4% versus 8. 8% for IOSP. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NGVT leads at 39. 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 NGVT or IOSP or FUL 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 H. B. Fuller Company's 4. 34x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, H. B. Fuller Company (FUL) trades at 13. 5x forward P/E versus 40. 2x for Hawkins, Inc. — 26. 8x 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 IOSP or FUL or HWKN?
In this comparison, IOSP (2.
0% yield), FUL (1. 4% 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 IOSP or FUL or HWKN better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Innospec Inc.
(IOSP) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 70), 2. 0% yield, +105. 2% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (IOSP: +105. 2%, 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 IOSP and FUL and HWKN?
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.
IOSP, FUL 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.