SEE vs GPK

For growth investors, Sealed Air Corporation (SEE) is the stronger pick with -0.

6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -2. 2% for Graphic Packaging Holding Company (GPK). Graphic Packaging Holding Company (GPK) offers the better valuation at 7. 2x trailing P/E (12. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Sealed Air Corporation (SEE) a "Buy" — based on 27 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.

On trailing P/E, Graphic Packaging Holding Company (GPK) is the cheapest at 7.

2x versus Sealed Air Corporation at 12. 3x. On forward P/E, Sealed Air Corporation is actually cheaper at 12. 4x — 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: Graphic Packaging Holding Company wins at 0. 63x versus Sealed Air Corporation's 9. 73x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Sealed Air Corporation (SEE) delivered a total return of -18.

8%, compared to -35. 4% for Graphic Packaging Holding Company (GPK). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GPK returned +9. 6% versus SEE's +4. 4%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Sealed Air Corporation (SEE) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

31β versus Graphic Packaging Holding Company's 0. 95β — meaning GPK is approximately 202% more volatile than SEE relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Graphic Packaging Holding Company (GPK) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 167% versus 3% for Sealed Air Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Sealed Air Corporation (SEE) is pulling ahead at -0.

6% versus -2. 2% for Graphic Packaging Holding Company (GPK). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Sealed Air Corporation grew EPS 89. 5% year-over-year, compared to -31. 5% for Graphic Packaging Holding Company. Over a 3-year CAGR, SEE leads at -1. 7% 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.

Sealed Air Corporation (SEE) is the more profitable company, earning 9.

4% net margin versus 5. 2% for Graphic Packaging Holding Company — meaning it keeps 9. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: SEE leads at 13. 5% versus 10. 1% for GPK. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — SEE leads at 29. 8%, 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.

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, Graphic Packaging Holding Company (GPK) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 63x versus Sealed Air Corporation's 9. 73x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Sealed Air Corporation (SEE) trades at 12. 4x forward P/E versus 12. 5x for Graphic Packaging Holding Company — 0. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for GPK: 14. 8% to $12. 20.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Graphic Packaging Holding Company (GPK) offers the highest yield at 4. 1%, versus 1. 9% for Sealed Air Corporation (SEE).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Sealed Air Corporation (SEE) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

31), 1. 9% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (SEE: +4. 4%, GPK: +9. 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.

Both stocks operate in the Consumer Cyclical sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

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.