UAN vs LIN vs APD vs HUN vs EMN

For growth investors, CVR Partners, LP (UAN) is the stronger pick with 15.

4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -6. 7% for Eastman Chemical Company (EMN). CVR Partners, LP (UAN) offers the better valuation at 13. 6x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Linde plc (LIN) a "Buy" — based on 28 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, CVR Partners, LP (UAN) is the cheapest at 13.

6x versus Linde plc at 33. 8x. On forward P/E, Eastman Chemical Company is actually cheaper at 12. 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: Linde plc wins at 1. 09x versus Eastman Chemical Company's 3. 89x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.

Over the past 5 years, CVR Partners, LP (UAN) delivered a total return of +240.

6%, compared to -39. 8% for Huntsman Corporation (HUN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: LIN returned +375. 2% 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), CVR Partners, LP (UAN) is the lower-risk stock at -0.

51β versus Huntsman Corporation's 1. 73β — meaning HUN is approximately -437% more volatile than UAN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Linde plc (LIN) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 68% versus 2% for CVR Partners, LP — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), CVR Partners, LP (UAN) is pulling ahead at 15.

4% versus -6. 7% for Eastman Chemical Company (EMN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: CVR Partners, LP grew EPS 62. 0% year-over-year, compared to -110. 3% for Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, LIN leads at 0. 6% 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.

Linde plc (LIN) is the more profitable company, earning 20.

3% net margin versus -4. 8% for Huntsman Corporation — meaning it keeps 20. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: LIN leads at 26. 3% versus -7. 3% for APD. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — LIN leads at 43. 3%, 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, Linde plc (LIN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 09x versus Eastman Chemical Company's 3. 89x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Eastman Chemical Company (EMN) trades at 12. 5x forward P/E versus 27. 7x for Linde plc — 15. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for LIN: 9. 3% to $539. 71.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

CVR Partners, LP (UAN) offers the highest yield at 9. 4%, versus 1. 2% for Linde plc (LIN).

For long-horizon retirement investors, CVR Partners, LP (UAN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.

51), 9. 4% yield, +156. 7% 10Y return). Huntsman Corporation (HUN) carries a higher beta of 1. 73 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (UAN: +156. 7%, HUN: +57. 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 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: UAN is a small-cap high-growth stock; LIN is a large-cap quality compounder stock; APD is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; HUN is a small-cap income-oriented stock; EMN is a small-cap deep-value 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.