Fuller H B vs RPM International
FUL and RPM 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 FUL and RPM compare
RPM International is the larger company, worth 4.9 times as much as Fuller H B ($13.1B against $2.7B).
On earnings, Fuller H B is cheaper: it trades at 13.8× trailing earnings, against 19.0× for RPM International.
RPM International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.0% versus 1.5% for Fuller H B).
RPM International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.7% compared with 5.6% at Fuller H B.
Both pay dividends: Fuller H B yields 2.0% and RPM International 1.6%.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | FUL | RPM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.7B | $13.1B |
| Share price | $49.70 | $102.44 |
| Change, 1 year | −14.4% | −5.5% |
| Change, 5 years | −33.2% | 14.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.96 | 0.91 |
| Employees | 7,100 | 18K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 | 18 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.8× (better) | 19.0× |
| P/S | 0.8× (better) | 1.6× |
| P/B | 1.2× (better) | 3.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.9× (better) | 12.3× |
| P/FCF | 26.7× | 18.5× (better) |
| PEG | – | 1.64 |
| FCF yield | 3.7% | 5.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $105.15 | $115.92 |
| Margin of safety | 52.7% (better) | 11.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.5% | 6.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.5% | 5.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 72.2% (better) | 0.22% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 71.8% (better) | 0.93% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 3.1% | 6.0% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 32.3% | 41.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 5.6% | 8.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.8% | 8.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 9.6% | 21.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.95 | 0.69 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.35 | 1.70 (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.82 (better) | 1.76 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.85 | 3.47 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.0% (better) | 1.6% |
| Payout ratio | 26.2% | 39.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.4% | – |
| Buyback yield | 1.8% (better) | 0.63% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.8% (better) | 2.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 104% | 85.4% |
| Held by insiders | 0.62% | 1.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$146K (better) | −$465K |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.4% | 3.0% |
Go deeper
- FUL stock overview
- FUL income statement
- FUL valuation and score
- RPM stock overview
- RPM income statement
- RPM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.