UL
Unilever PLC
Household & Personal Products
Market Cap$127.64B
5Y Perf.+8.1%
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Try these comparisons:
Stock Comparison
UL vs KMB
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
KMB
Kimberly-Clark Corporation
Household & Personal Products
Market Cap$32.26B
5Y Perf.-31.3%
UL vs KMB — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | UL | KMB |
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Household & Personal Products | Household & Personal Products |
| Market Cap | $127.64B | $32.26B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $120.06B | $16.54B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $12.20B | $2.12B |
| Gross Margin | 71.3% | 35.9% |
| Operating Margin | 15.8% | 13.3% |
| Forward P/E | 18.5x | 12.9x |
| Total Debt | $30.66B | $7.17B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $6.14B | $688M |
UL vs KMB — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
UL
KMB
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unilever PLC (UL) | 100 | 108.1 | +8.1% |
| Kimberly-Clark Corp… (KMB) | 100 | 68.7 | -31.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: UL vs KMB
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Bottom line: UL leads in 4 of 7 categories, making it the strongest pick for growth and revenue expansion and capital preservation and lower volatility. Kimberly-Clark Corporation is the stronger pick specifically for valuation and capital efficiency and profitability and margin quality. As sector peers, any of these can serve as alternatives in the same allocation.
UL
Unilever PLC
The Growth Play
UL carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 1.9%, EPS growth -10.5%, 3Y rev CAGR 5.0%
- 74.7% 10Y total return vs KMB's 11.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.05, current ratio 0.76x
Best for: growth exposure and long-term compounding
KMB
Kimberly-Clark Corporation
The Income Pick
KMB is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 27 yrs, beta 0.14, yield 5.1%
- Lower P/E (12.9x vs 18.5x)
- 12.8% margin vs UL's 10.2%
Best for: income & stability
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | UL | 1.9% revenue growth vs KMB's -14.2% |
| Value | KMB | Lower P/E (12.9x vs 18.5x) |
| Quality / Margins | KMB | 12.8% margin vs UL's 10.2% |
| Stability / Safety | UL | Beta 0.05 vs KMB's 0.14, lower leverage |
| Dividends | KMB | 5.1% yield, 27-year raise streak, vs UL's 3.4% |
| Momentum (1Y) | UL | -4.4% vs KMB's -21.9% |
| Efficiency (ROA) | UL | 16.0% ROA vs KMB's 12.5%, ROIC 15.3% vs 23.3% |
UL vs KMB — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
FY 2025
UL vs KMB — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
BEST OVERALLULLAGGINGKMB
KMBKimberly-Clark Corpor…
2leads
ULUnilever PLC
3leads
6 Total Categories
CATEGORYLEADERvs KMBMETRICS WON
Income & Cash FlowRevenue, margins, and cash flow strength
Tied
—
Valuation MetricsMultiples, price ratios, and targets
UL4/6
Profitability & EfficiencyROE, ROIC, leverage, and quality scores
KMB5/8
Total Returns1Y, 3Y, 5Y total returns with dividends
UL5/6
Risk & VolatilityBeta, volatility, and downside exposure
UL2/2
Analyst OutlookRatings, price targets, and dividends
KMB2/2
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — UL and KMB each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
UL is the larger business by revenue, generating $120.1B annually — 7.3x KMB's $16.5B. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from 12.8% (KMB) to 10.2% (UL). On growth, UL holds the edge at -3.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ULUnilever PLC | KMBKimberly-Clark Co… |
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $120.1B | $16.5B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $21.7B | $2.8B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $12.2B | $2.1B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $14.5B | $2.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +71.3% | +35.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +15.8% | +13.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +10.2% | +12.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +12.1% | +15.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -3.2% | -14.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -3.4% | +17.6% |
Evenly matched — UL and KMB each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
UL leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 16.0x trailing earnings, KMB trades at a 27% valuation discount to UL's 21.8x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, UL's 12.0x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than KMB's 12.5x.
| Metric | ULUnilever PLC | KMBKimberly-Clark Co… |
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $127.6B | $32.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $156.3B | $38.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 21.83x | 16.01x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 18.46x | 12.93x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 16.00x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 11.99x | 12.48x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.80x | 1.87x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 5.56x | 19.60x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 14.04x | 19.69x |
UL leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KMB leads this category, winning 5 of 8 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KMB delivers a 131.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $132 in annual profit, vs $61 for UL. UL carries lower financial leverage with a 1.36x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to KMB's 4.34x.
| Metric | ULUnilever PLC | KMBKimberly-Clark Co… |
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +61.2% | +131.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +16.0% | +12.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +15.3% | +23.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +17.7% | +25.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.36x | 4.34x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $24.5B | $6.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $6.1B | $688M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $30.7B | $7.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 20.96x | 9.67x |
KMB leads this category, winning 5 of 8 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
UL leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in UL five years ago would be worth $11,724 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $8,939 for KMB. Over the past 12 months, UL leads with a -4.4% total return vs KMB's -21.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors UL at 5.3% vs KMB's -8.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ULUnilever PLC | KMBKimberly-Clark Co… |
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -9.3% | -2.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -4.4% | -21.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +16.7% | -22.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +17.2% | -10.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +74.7% | +11.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +5.3% | -8.3% |
UL leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
UL leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
UL is the less volatile stock with a 0.05 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than KMB's 0.14 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. UL currently trades 77.9% from its 52-week high vs KMB's 67.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ULUnilever PLC | KMBKimberly-Clark Co… |
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.05x | 0.14x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $74.98 | $144.31 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $54.95 | $92.42 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +77.9% | +67.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 48.5 | 42.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 4.6M | 4.8M |
UL leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
KMB leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates UL as "Hold" and KMB as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 13.2% upside for KMB (target: $110) vs 12.2% for UL (target: $66). For income investors, KMB offers the higher dividend yield at 5.13% vs UL's 3.45%.
| Metric | ULUnilever PLC | KMBKimberly-Clark Co… |
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $65.55 | $110.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 35 | 31 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.4% | +5.1% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 27 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.72 | $4.98 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.4% | +0.4% |
KMB leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Key Takeaway
UL leads in 3 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Total Returns). KMB leads in 2 (Profitability & Efficiency, Analyst Outlook). 1 tied.
Best OverallUnilever PLC (UL)Leads 3 of 6 categories
Loading custom metrics...
UL vs KMB: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is UL or KMB a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Unilever PLC (UL) is the stronger pick with 1.
9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -14. 2% for Kimberly-Clark Corporation (KMB). Kimberly-Clark Corporation (KMB) offers the better valuation at 16. 0x trailing P/E (12. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Unilever PLC (UL) a "Hold" — based on 35 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 — UL or KMB?
On trailing P/E, Kimberly-Clark Corporation (KMB) is the cheapest at 16.
0x versus Unilever PLC at 21. 8x. On forward P/E, Kimberly-Clark Corporation is actually cheaper at 12. 9x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — UL or KMB?
Over the past 5 years, Unilever PLC (UL) delivered a total return of +17.
2%, compared to -10. 6% for Kimberly-Clark Corporation (KMB). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: UL returned +74. 7% versus KMB's +11. 0%. 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 — UL or KMB?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Unilever PLC (UL) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
05β versus Kimberly-Clark Corporation's 0. 14β — meaning KMB is approximately 180% more volatile than UL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Unilever PLC (UL) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 136% versus 4% for Kimberly-Clark Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — UL or KMB?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Unilever PLC (UL) is pulling ahead at 1.
9% versus -14. 2% for Kimberly-Clark Corporation (KMB). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Unilever PLC grew EPS -10. 5% year-over-year, compared to -19. 6% for Kimberly-Clark Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, UL 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 — UL or KMB?
Kimberly-Clark Corporation (KMB) is the more profitable company, earning 11.
7% net margin versus 9. 5% for Unilever PLC — meaning it keeps 11. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: UL leads at 15. 5% versus 14. 5% for KMB. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — UL leads at 100. 0%, 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 UL or KMB more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Kimberly-Clark Corporation (KMB) trades at 12.
9x forward P/E versus 18. 5x for Unilever PLC — 5. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for KMB: 13. 2% to $110. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — UL or KMB?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation (KMB) offers the highest yield at 5. 1%, versus 3. 4% for Unilever PLC (UL).
09Is UL or KMB better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Unilever PLC (UL) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
05), 3. 4% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (UL: +74. 7%, KMB: +11. 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 UL and KMB?
Both stocks operate in the Consumer Defensive sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: UL is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; KMB is a mid-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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform both.
Revenue Growth>
%
(UL: -3.2% · KMB: -14.0%)Net Margin>
%
(UL: 10.2% · KMB: 12.8%)P/E Ratio<
x
(UL: 21.8x · KMB: 16.0x)You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.