Cabot vs Fuller H B
CBT and FUL side by side, both in chemicals and allied products. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CBT and FUL compare
Cabot is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as Fuller H B ($3.7B against $2.7B).
On earnings, Cabot is cheaper: it trades at 13.3× trailing earnings, against 13.7× for Fuller H B.
Cabot grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (16.6% versus 1.5% for Fuller H B).
Cabot keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.4% compared with 5.6% at Fuller H B.
Both pay dividends: Cabot yields 2.6% and Fuller H B 2.0%.
Cabot scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 18 for Fuller H B), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | CBT | FUL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.7B | $2.7B |
| Share price | $71.92 | $49.29 |
| Change, 1 year | 17.0% | −14.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 21.4% | −35.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.93 | 0.95 |
| Employees | 4,100 | 7,100 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 18 |
| Valuation score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.3× (better) | 13.7× |
| P/S | 0.8× | 0.7× (better) |
| P/B | 2.3× | 1.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.5× (better) | 7.9× |
| P/FCF | 7.9× (better) | 26.5× |
| PEG | 0.72 | – |
| FCF yield | 12.6% (better) | 3.8% |
| Fair value | $134.97 | $102.06 |
| Margin of safety | 46.7% | 51.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 16.6% (better) | 1.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.3% (better) | 4.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −32.8% | 72.2% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −29.8% | 71.8% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 3.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 23.5% | 32.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | 14.5% | – |
| Net margin | 6.4% (better) | 5.6% |
| FCF margin | 10.3% (better) | 2.8% |
| Return on equity | 19.2% (better) | 9.6% |
| Return on invested capital | 15.1% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.79 (better) | 0.95 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.16 (better) | 3.35 |
| Interest coverage | 7.1× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.47 | 1.82 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.49 (better) | 1.85 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.6% (better) | 2.0% |
| Payout ratio | 41.6% | 26.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | 4 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 4.7% | 7.4% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 4.8% (better) | 1.8% |
| Shareholder yield | 7.4% (better) | 3.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 104% | 104% |
| Held by insiders | 2.1% | 0.65% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$19.6M | $853K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 10.3% | 4.1% |
Go deeper
- CBT stock overview
- CBT income statement
- CBT valuation and score
- FUL stock overview
- FUL income statement
- FUL valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.