Chemicals - Specialty
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
NGVT vs IOSP vs FUL vs HWKN vs BCPC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Chemicals - Specialty
Chemicals - Specialty
Chemicals - Specialty
Chemicals - Specialty
NGVT vs IOSP vs FUL vs HWKN vs BCPC — 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 | $2.54B | $2.13B | $3.45B | $3.30B | $5.29B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.21B | $1.79B | $3.47B | $1.08B | $1.06B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-128M | $114M | $152M | $82M | $158M |
| Gross Margin | 39.3% | 27.4% | 31.5% | 22.6% | 36.3% |
| Operating Margin | 22.8% | 8.1% | 10.9% | 10.6% | 21.0% |
| Forward P/E | 14.6x | 17.9x | 13.5x | 40.2x | 31.5x |
| Total Debt | $1.24B | $90M | $2.02B | $261M | $192M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $78M | $293M | $107M | $4M | $75M |
NGVT vs IOSP vs FUL vs HWKN vs BCPC — 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% |
| Balchem Corporation (BCPC) | 100 | 174.0 | +74.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NGVT vs IOSP vs FUL vs HWKN vs BCPC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
NGVT ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +66.6% vs BCPC's +1.3%
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 6.7%, current ratio 2.79x
- PEG 0.56 vs FUL's 4.34
- Beta 0.70, yield 2.0%, current ratio 2.79x
- Lower P/E (17.9x vs 31.5x), PEG 0.56 vs 2.46
Among these 5 stocks, FUL 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 11.2%, EPS growth -3.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 5.0%
- 6.5% 10Y total return vs BCPC's 180.9%
- 11.2% revenue growth vs NGVT's -17.0%
BCPC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 16 yrs, beta 0.26, yield 0.5%
- 15.0% margin vs NGVT's -10.6%
- Beta 0.26 vs NGVT's 1.27, lower leverage
- 9.4% ROA vs NGVT's -7.3%, ROIC 12.2% vs 14.2%
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 31.5x), PEG 0.56 vs 2.46 | |
| Quality / Margins | 15.0% margin vs NGVT's -10.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.26 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 BCPC's +1.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 9.4% ROA vs NGVT's -7.3%, ROIC 12.2% vs 14.2% |
NGVT vs IOSP vs FUL vs HWKN vs BCPC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
NGVT vs IOSP vs FUL vs HWKN vs BCPC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 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 0 • BCPC leads 0 • 3 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 — 3.3x BCPC's $1.1B. BCPC is the more profitable business, keeping 15.0% 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 | $1.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $378M | $187M | $472M | $168M | $267M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$128M | $114M | $152M | $82M | $158M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $246M | $77M | $121M | $86M | $182M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +39.3% | +27.4% | +31.5% | +22.6% | +36.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +22.8% | +8.1% | +10.9% | +10.6% | +21.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -10.6% | +6.4% | +4.4% | +7.5% | +15.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +20.3% | +4.3% | +3.5% | +7.9% | +17.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -9.2% | +2.8% | -3.1% | +8.4% | +8.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +196.4% | -6.9% | +122.2% | -5.1% | +10.6% |
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 | $5.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $3.7B | $1.9B | $5.4B | $3.6B | $5.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -15.61x | 18.54x | 23.14x | 40.50x | 34.75x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 14.60x | 17.93x | 13.48x | 40.24x | 31.52x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.58x | 7.45x | 2.67x | 2.71x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 10.05x | 9.39x | 9.28x | 21.24x | 20.50x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.17x | 1.20x | 0.99x | 3.05x | 5.10x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 87.73x | 1.62x | 1.76x | 6.19x | 4.28x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 9.27x | 24.24x | 28.44x | 38.38x | 30.54x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — IOSP and BCPC 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), BCPC scores 9/9 vs HWKN's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -156.1% | +8.6% | +7.6% | +16.0% | +12.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -7.3% | +6.3% | +2.9% | +8.3% | +9.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +14.2% | +11.2% | +7.8% | +12.3% | +12.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +17.1% | +11.0% | +9.2% | +14.8% | +14.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 9 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 41.84x | 0.07x | 1.01x | 0.49x | 0.15x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.2B | -$203M | $1.9B | $258M | $117M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $78M | $293M | $107M | $4M | $75M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.2B | $90M | $2.0B | $261M | $192M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -0.86x | — | 2.62x | 8.52x | 15.23x |
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 BCPC's +1.3%. 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% | +7.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +66.6% | +1.4% | +15.2% | +19.6% | +1.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +33.4% | -7.8% | +1.5% | +219.5% | +24.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -10.8% | -4.2% | -0.1% | +397.2% | +27.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +111.0% | +105.2% | +50.6% | +649.5% | +180.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +10.1% | -2.7% | +0.5% | +47.3% | +7.6% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — IOSP and BCPC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
BCPC is the less volatile stock with a 0.26 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 | 0.26x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $79.05 | $92.14 | $68.63 | $186.15 | $183.90 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $39.74 | $65.58 | $48.71 | $117.98 | $139.17 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +91.1% | +94.0% | +92.7% | +85.1% | +89.7% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 55.7 | 71.7 | 58.2 | 49.7 | 59.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 211K | 176K | 483K | 144K | 171K |
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", BCPC as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 32.8% upside for IOSP (target: $115) vs 6.3% for BCPC (target: $176). 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 | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $76.67 | $115.00 | $68.25 | — | $175.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 13 | 9 | 15 | 1 | 10 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +2.0% | +1.4% | +0.5% | +0.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 12 | 38 | 15 | 16 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.70 | $0.91 | $0.75 | $0.87 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.2% | 0.0% | +1.8% | 0.0% | +2.0% |
NGVT leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). FUL leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 3 tied.
NGVT vs IOSP vs FUL vs HWKN vs BCPC: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NGVT or IOSP or FUL or HWKN or BCPC 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 or BCPC?
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 or BCPC?
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 or BCPC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Balchem Corporation (BCPC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
26β versus Ingevity Corporation's 1. 27β — meaning NGVT is approximately 383% more volatile than BCPC 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 or BCPC?
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 or BCPC?
Balchem Corporation (BCPC) is the more profitable company, earning 14.
9% net margin versus -14. 3% for Ingevity Corporation — meaning it keeps 14. 9% 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 or BCPC 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 or BCPC?
In this comparison, IOSP (2.
0% yield), FUL (1. 4% yield), BCPC (0. 5% 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 or BCPC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Balchem Corporation (BCPC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
26), 0. 5% yield, +180. 9% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (BCPC: +180. 9%, 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 and BCPC?
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, BCPC 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.