Chemicals - Specialty
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
NGVT vs KWR vs CBT vs FUL vs RPM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Chemicals - Specialty
Chemicals - Specialty
Chemicals - Specialty
Chemicals - Specialty
NGVT vs KWR vs CBT vs FUL vs RPM — 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 | $2.50B | $4.58B | $3.45B | $13.71B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.21B | $1.93B | $3.58B | $3.47B | $7.58B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-128M | $4M | $285M | $152M | $667M |
| Gross Margin | 39.3% | 34.4% | 24.8% | 31.5% | 41.2% |
| Operating Margin | 22.8% | 3.7% | 15.7% | 10.9% | 12.0% |
| Forward P/E | 14.6x | 20.6x | 13.9x | 13.5x | 19.5x |
| Total Debt | $1.24B | $929M | $1.22B | $2.02B | $2.96B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $78M | $180M | $258M | $107M | $302M |
NGVT vs KWR vs CBT vs FUL vs RPM — 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% |
| Quaker Chemical Cor… (KWR) | 100 | 77.8 | -22.2% |
| Cabot Corporation (CBT) | 100 | 236.6 | +136.6% |
| H.B. Fuller Company (FUL) | 100 | 142.7 | +42.7% |
| RPM International I… (RPM) | 100 | 142.6 | +42.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NGVT vs KWR vs CBT vs FUL vs RPM
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 RPM's -4.9%
KWR is the clearest fit if your priority is growth.
- 2.7% revenue growth vs NGVT's -17.0%
CBT has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 14 yrs, beta 0.82, yield 2.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.82, Low D/E 71.3%, current ratio 1.61x
- Beta 0.82, yield 2.0%, current ratio 1.61x
- Beta 0.82 vs KWR's 1.36
FUL is the clearest fit if your priority is value.
- Lower P/E (13.5x vs 13.9x)
RPM is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 0.5%, EPS growth 17.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 3.2%
- 142.9% 10Y total return vs CBT's 119.6%
- PEG 1.08 vs FUL's 4.34
- 8.8% margin vs NGVT's -10.6%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 2.7% revenue growth vs NGVT's -17.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (13.5x vs 13.9x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 8.8% margin vs NGVT's -10.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.82 vs KWR's 1.36 | |
| Dividends | 2.0% yield, 14-year raise streak, vs FUL's 1.4%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +66.6% vs RPM's -4.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 8.5% ROA vs NGVT's -7.3%, ROIC 13.3% vs 14.2% |
NGVT vs KWR vs CBT vs FUL vs RPM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
NGVT vs KWR vs CBT vs FUL vs RPM — 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 • RPM leads 1 • CBT leads 1 • KWR leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NGVT leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RPM is the larger business by revenue, generating $7.6B annually — 6.3x NGVT's $1.2B. RPM is the more profitable business, keeping 8.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to NGVT's -10.6%. On growth, KWR holds the edge at +8.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.2B | $1.9B | $3.6B | $3.5B | $7.6B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $378M | $143M | $731M | $472M | $1.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$128M | $4M | $285M | $152M | $667M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $246M | $143M | $459M | $121M | $583M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +39.3% | +34.4% | +24.8% | +31.5% | +41.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +22.8% | +3.7% | +15.7% | +10.9% | +12.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -10.6% | +0.2% | +8.0% | +4.4% | +8.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +20.3% | +7.4% | +12.8% | +3.5% | +7.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -9.2% | +8.5% | -3.4% | -3.1% | +3.5% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +196.4% | +54.8% | -23.1% | +122.2% | -11.3% |
Valuation Metrics
FUL leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 14.6x trailing earnings, CBT trades at a 37% valuation discount to FUL's 23.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), RPM offers better value at 1.11x vs FUL's 7.45x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $2.5B | $2.5B | $4.6B | $3.4B | $13.7B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $3.7B | $3.3B | $5.5B | $5.4B | $16.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -15.61x | -1031.86x | 14.56x | 23.14x | 20.01x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 14.60x | 20.59x | 13.88x | 13.48x | 19.48x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | 7.45x | 1.11x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 10.05x | 12.03x | 7.14x | 9.28x | 14.88x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.17x | 1.33x | 1.23x | 0.99x | 1.86x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 87.73x | 1.83x | 2.79x | 1.76x | 4.75x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 9.27x | 31.07x | 11.71x | 28.44x | 25.47x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — KWR and CBT and RPM each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
RPM delivers a 21.3% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $21 in annual profit, vs $-156 for NGVT. KWR carries lower financial leverage with a 0.67x 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 KWR's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -156.1% | +0.3% | +16.8% | +7.6% | +21.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -7.3% | +0.2% | +7.4% | +2.9% | +8.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +14.2% | +6.6% | +17.4% | +7.8% | +13.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +17.1% | +7.6% | +21.3% | +9.2% | +15.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 41.84x | 0.67x | 0.71x | 1.01x | 1.03x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.2B | $749M | $957M | $1.9B | $2.7B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $78M | $180M | $258M | $107M | $302M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.2B | $929M | $1.2B | $2.0B | $3.0B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -0.86x | 1.41x | 14.72x | 2.62x | 8.51x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
RPM leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CBT five years ago would be worth $15,582 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,392 for KWR. Over the past 12 months, NGVT leads with a +66.6% total return vs RPM's -4.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors RPM at 10.5% vs KWR's -9.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +19.8% | +4.7% | +32.1% | +6.2% | +4.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +66.6% | +22.7% | +17.4% | +15.2% | -4.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +33.4% | -25.1% | +26.6% | +1.5% | +35.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -10.8% | -36.1% | +55.8% | -0.1% | +27.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +111.0% | +77.9% | +119.6% | +50.6% | +142.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +10.1% | -9.2% | +8.2% | +0.5% | +10.5% |
Risk & Volatility
CBT leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CBT is the less volatile stock with a 0.82 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than KWR's 1.36 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CBT currently trades 98.0% from its 52-week high vs KWR's 78.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.27x | 1.36x | 0.82x | 1.18x | 0.99x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $79.05 | $183.00 | $89.46 | $68.63 | $129.12 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $39.74 | $111.32 | $58.33 | $48.71 | $92.92 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +91.1% | +78.9% | +98.0% | +92.7% | +82.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 55.7 | 53.5 | 57.0 | 58.2 | 59.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 211K | 151K | 382K | 483K | 820K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — CBT and FUL each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: NGVT as "Buy", KWR as "Buy", CBT as "Buy", FUL as "Buy", RPM as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 22.4% upside for KWR (target: $177) vs -1.9% for CBT (target: $86). For income investors, CBT offers the higher dividend yield at 2.02% vs KWR's 1.36%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $76.67 | $176.75 | $86.00 | $68.25 | $124.67 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 13 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 22 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +1.4% | +2.0% | +1.4% | +1.9% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 18 | 14 | 38 | 33 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.97 | $1.77 | $0.91 | $1.99 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.2% | +1.7% | +3.7% | +1.8% | +0.6% |
NGVT leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). FUL leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
NGVT vs KWR vs CBT vs FUL vs RPM: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NGVT or KWR or CBT or FUL or RPM a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Quaker Chemical Corporation (KWR) is the stronger pick with 2.
7% 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 KWR or CBT or FUL or RPM?
On trailing P/E, Cabot Corporation (CBT) is the cheapest at 14.
6x versus H. B. Fuller Company at 23. 1x. 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: RPM International Inc. wins at 1. 08x versus H. B. Fuller Company's 4. 34x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — NGVT or KWR or CBT or FUL or RPM?
Over the past 5 years, Cabot Corporation (CBT) delivered a total return of +55.
8%, compared to -36. 1% for Quaker Chemical Corporation (KWR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RPM returned +142. 9% 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 KWR or CBT or FUL or RPM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Cabot Corporation (CBT) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
82β versus Quaker Chemical Corporation's 1. 36β — meaning KWR is approximately 66% more volatile than CBT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Quaker Chemical Corporation (KWR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 67% versus 42% for Ingevity Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — NGVT or KWR or CBT or FUL or RPM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Quaker Chemical Corporation (KWR) is pulling ahead at 2.
7% versus -17. 0% for Ingevity Corporation (NGVT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Ingevity Corporation grew EPS 61. 1% year-over-year, compared to -102. 2% for Quaker Chemical Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, RPM leads at 3. 2% 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 KWR or CBT or FUL or RPM?
RPM International Inc.
(RPM) is the more profitable company, earning 9. 3% net margin versus -14. 3% for Ingevity Corporation — meaning it keeps 9. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NGVT leads at 22. 4% versus 9. 4% for KWR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RPM leads at 41. 4%, 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 KWR or CBT or FUL or RPM 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, RPM International Inc. (RPM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 08x versus H. B. Fuller Company's 4. 34x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, H. B. Fuller Company (FUL) trades at 13. 5x forward P/E versus 20. 6x for Quaker Chemical Corporation — 7. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for KWR: 22. 4% to $176. 75.
08Which pays a better dividend — NGVT or KWR or CBT or FUL or RPM?
In this comparison, CBT (2.
0% yield), RPM (1. 9% yield), FUL (1. 4% yield), KWR (1. 4% yield) pay a dividend. NGVT does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is NGVT or KWR or CBT or FUL or RPM better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Cabot Corporation (CBT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
82), 2. 0% yield, +119. 6% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CBT: +119. 6%, 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 KWR and CBT and FUL and RPM?
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: NGVT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; KWR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CBT is a small-cap deep-value stock; FUL is a small-cap quality compounder stock; RPM is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. KWR, CBT, FUL, RPM pay a dividend while NGVT 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.