SHW vs EMN

For growth investors, The Sherwin-Williams Company (SHW) is the stronger pick with 2.

1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -6. 7% for Eastman Chemical Company (EMN). Eastman Chemical Company (EMN) offers the better valuation at 18. 5x trailing P/E (12. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate The Sherwin-Williams Company (SHW) a "Buy" — based on 38 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, Eastman Chemical Company (EMN) is the cheapest at 18.

5x versus The Sherwin-Williams Company at 31. 5x. On forward P/E, Eastman Chemical Company is actually cheaper at 12. 5x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Eastman Chemical Company wins at 3. 89x versus The Sherwin-Williams Company's 3. 94x.

Over the past 5 years, The Sherwin-Williams Company (SHW) delivered a total return of +18.

1%, compared to -26. 2% for Eastman Chemical Company (EMN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: SHW returned +250. 0% versus EMN's +35. 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), The Sherwin-Williams Company (SHW) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

79β versus Eastman Chemical Company's 1. 36β — meaning EMN is approximately 71% more volatile than SHW relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Eastman Chemical Company (EMN) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 84% versus 3% for The Sherwin-Williams Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), The Sherwin-Williams Company (SHW) is pulling ahead at 2.

1% versus -6. 7% for Eastman Chemical Company (EMN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Sherwin-Williams Company grew EPS -2. 7% year-over-year, compared to -46. 5% for Eastman Chemical Company. Over a 3-year CAGR, SHW leads at 2. 1% 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.

The Sherwin-Williams Company (SHW) is the more profitable company, earning 10.

9% net margin versus 5. 4% for Eastman Chemical Company — meaning it keeps 10. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: SHW leads at 16. 1% versus 10. 6% for EMN. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — SHW leads at 48. 9%, 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, Eastman Chemical Company (EMN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 3. 89x versus The Sherwin-Williams Company's 3. 94x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Eastman Chemical Company (EMN) trades at 12. 5x forward P/E versus 27. 3x for The Sherwin-Williams Company — 14. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SHW: 20. 3% to $389. 43.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Eastman Chemical Company (EMN) offers the highest yield at 4. 4%, versus 1. 0% for The Sherwin-Williams Company (SHW).

For long-horizon retirement investors, The Sherwin-Williams Company (SHW) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

79), 1. 0% yield, +250. 0% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (SHW: +250. 0%, EMN: +35. 4%), 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 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: SHW is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; EMN is a small-cap income-oriented stock. 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.