WLK vs CE vs EMN vs OLN

For growth investors, Olin Corporation (OLN) is the stronger pick with 3.

7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -8. 0% for Westlake Corporation (WLK). Eastman Chemical Company (EMN) offers the better valuation at 18. 5x trailing P/E (12. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Eastman Chemical Company (EMN) a "Buy" — 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, Celanese Corporation is actually cheaper at 11.

1x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Westlake Corporation (WLK) delivered a total return of +5.

9%, compared to -57. 2% for Celanese Corporation (CE). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: WLK returned +138. 6% versus CE's +16. 9%. 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), Westlake Corporation (WLK) is the lower-risk stock at 1.

06β versus Olin Corporation's 1. 47β — meaning OLN is approximately 39% more volatile than WLK relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Westlake Corporation (WLK) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 69% versus 3% for Celanese Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Olin Corporation (OLN) is pulling ahead at 3.

7% versus -8. 0% for Westlake Corporation (WLK). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Celanese Corporation grew EPS 23. 6% year-over-year, compared to -352. 8% for Westlake Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, CE leads at -0. 4% 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.

Eastman Chemical Company (EMN) is the more profitable company, earning 5.

4% net margin versus -13. 5% for Westlake Corporation — meaning it keeps 5. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: EMN leads at 10. 6% versus -14. 1% for WLK. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — EMN leads at 21. 1%, 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, Celanese Corporation (CE) trades at 11.

1x forward P/E versus 26. 7x for Westlake Corporation — 15. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CE: 5. 3% to $65. 40.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Eastman Chemical Company (EMN) offers the highest yield at 4. 4%, versus 0. 2% for Celanese Corporation (CE).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Westlake Corporation (WLK) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1.

06), 2. 1% yield, +138. 6% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (WLK: +138. 6%, CE: +16. 9%), 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: WLK is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; CE is a small-cap quality compounder stock; EMN is a small-cap income-oriented stock; OLN is a small-cap quality compounder stock. WLK, EMN, OLN pay a dividend while CE does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.