UL vs NWL

For growth investors, Unilever PLC (UL) is the stronger pick with 1.

9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -5. 0% for Newell Brands Inc. (NWL). Unilever PLC (UL) offers the better valuation at 22. 2x trailing P/E (18. 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.

On forward P/E, Newell Brands Inc.

is actually cheaper at 8. 2x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Unilever PLC (UL) delivered a total return of +17.

9%, compared to -74. 9% for Newell Brands Inc. (NWL). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: UL returned +76. 6% versus NWL's -75. 0%. 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), Unilever PLC (UL) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

05β versus Newell Brands Inc. 's 1. 91β — meaning NWL is approximately 3675% 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 2% for Newell Brands Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Unilever PLC (UL) is pulling ahead at 1.

9% versus -5. 0% for Newell Brands Inc. (NWL). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Unilever PLC grew EPS -10. 5% year-over-year, compared to -30. 8% for Newell Brands Inc.. 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.

Unilever PLC (UL) is the more profitable company, earning 9.

5% net margin versus -4. 0% for Newell Brands Inc. — meaning it keeps 9. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: UL leads at 15. 5% versus 6. 2% for NWL. 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.

On forward earnings alone, Newell Brands Inc.

(NWL) trades at 8. 2x forward P/E versus 18. 9x for Unilever PLC — 10. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NWL: 18. 9% to $5. 50.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Newell Brands Inc. (NWL) offers the highest yield at 6. 2%, versus 3. 4% for Unilever PLC (UL).

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). Newell Brands Inc. (NWL) carries a higher beta of 1. 91 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (UL: +76. 6%, NWL: -75. 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.

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.

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.