H.B. Fuller Company (FUL) Stock Competitors & Peer Comparison
See (FUL) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Chemicals - Specialty Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FUL | $62.42 | +3.98% | 3.4B | 21.46 | $2.89 | +1.53% |
| LIN | $518.01 | +3.21% | 238.5B | 34.19 | $15.08 | +1.20% |
| SHW | $309.55 | +3.34% | 76.6B | 29.82 | $10.41 | +1.03% |
| ECL | $259.69 | +0.89% | 74.4B | 35.83 | $7.38 | +1.05% |
| APD | $283.07 | +2.28% | 63B | 29.82 | $9.49 | +2.55% |
| PPG | $116.18 | +2.92% | 25.9B | 16.67 | $6.98 | +2.46% |
| SQM | $74.68 | +2.64% | 21.6B | 26.45 | $2.86 | +1.36% |
| IFF | $76.09 | +4.80% | 19.4B | 23.47 | $3.23 | +2.12% |
| DD | $46.31 | -1.45% | 19.3B | 123.84 | $0.38 | +1.65% |
| ALB | $147.95 | -1.26% | 18B | -44.67 | -$3.42 | +1.07% |
Stock Comparison
FUL vs LIN Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, LIN has a market cap of 238.5B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while LIN trades at $518.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas LIN's P/E ratio is 34.19. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to LIN's ROE of +0.19%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to LIN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check LIN's competition here
FUL vs SHW Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, SHW has a market cap of 76.6B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while SHW trades at $309.55.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas SHW's P/E ratio is 29.82. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to SHW's ROE of +0.58%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to SHW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check SHW's competition here
FUL vs ECL Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, ECL has a market cap of 74.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while ECL trades at $259.69.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas ECL's P/E ratio is 35.83. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ECL's ROE of +0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to ECL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check ECL's competition here
FUL vs APD Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, APD has a market cap of 63B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while APD trades at $283.07.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas APD's P/E ratio is 29.82. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to APD's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to APD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check APD's competition here
FUL vs PPG Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, PPG has a market cap of 25.9B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while PPG trades at $116.18.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas PPG's P/E ratio is 16.67. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to PPG's ROE of +0.32%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to PPG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check PPG's competition here
FUL vs SQM Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, SQM has a market cap of 21.6B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while SQM trades at $74.68.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas SQM's P/E ratio is 26.45. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to SQM's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to SQM. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check SQM's competition here
FUL vs IFF Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, IFF has a market cap of 19.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while IFF trades at $76.09.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas IFF's P/E ratio is 23.47. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to IFF's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to IFF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check IFF's competition here
FUL vs DD Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, DD has a market cap of 19.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while DD trades at $46.31.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas DD's P/E ratio is 123.84. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to DD's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to DD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check DD's competition here
FUL vs ALB Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, ALB has a market cap of 18B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while ALB trades at $147.95.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas ALB's P/E ratio is -44.67. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ALB's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to ALB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check ALB's competition here
FUL vs RPM Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, RPM has a market cap of 13.8B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while RPM trades at $107.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas RPM's P/E ratio is 20.70. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to RPM's ROE of +0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to RPM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check RPM's competition here
FUL vs SOLS Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, SOLS has a market cap of 12.7B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while SOLS trades at $79.81.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas SOLS's P/E ratio is 68.03. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to SOLS's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to SOLS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check SOLS's competition here
FUL vs WLK Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, WLK has a market cap of 11B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while WLK trades at $87.19.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas WLK's P/E ratio is -6.78. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to WLK's ROE of -0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to WLK. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check WLK's competition here
FUL vs ESI Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, ESI has a market cap of 10.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while ESI trades at $40.56.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas ESI's P/E ratio is 66.55. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ESI's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to ESI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check ESI's competition here
FUL vs SSL Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, SSL has a market cap of 8.7B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while SSL trades at $13.61.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas SSL's P/E ratio is 61.70. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to SSL's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to SSL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check SSL's competition here
FUL vs NEU Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, NEU has a market cap of 7.6B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while NEU trades at $839.78.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas NEU's P/E ratio is 18.79. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to NEU's ROE of +0.24%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to NEU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check NEU's competition here
FUL vs AXTA Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, AXTA has a market cap of 7B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while AXTA trades at $33.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas AXTA's P/E ratio is 19.22. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to AXTA's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to AXTA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check AXTA's competition here
FUL vs ALTM Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, ALTM has a market cap of 6.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while ALTM trades at $5.84.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas ALTM's P/E ratio is 64.89. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ALTM's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to ALTM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check ALTM's competition here
FUL vs IKNX Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, IKNX has a market cap of 5.9B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while IKNX trades at $33.90.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas IKNX's P/E ratio is -153.39. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to IKNX's ROE of -4.45%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to IKNX. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check IKNX's competition here
FUL vs PRM Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, PRM has a market cap of 5.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while PRM trades at $33.60.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas PRM's P/E ratio is -25.40. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to PRM's ROE of -0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to PRM. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check PRM's competition here
FUL vs BCPC Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, BCPC has a market cap of 5.2B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while BCPC trades at $163.39.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas BCPC's P/E ratio is 33.26. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BCPC's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to BCPC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check BCPC's competition here
FUL vs SXT Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, SXT has a market cap of 5.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while SXT trades at $119.59.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas SXT's P/E ratio is 35.24. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to SXT's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to SXT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check SXT's competition here
FUL vs CBT Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, CBT has a market cap of 4.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while CBT trades at $85.75.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas CBT's P/E ratio is 15.93. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CBT's ROE of +0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to CBT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check CBT's competition here
FUL vs AVNT Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, AVNT has a market cap of 3.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while AVNT trades at $35.41.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas AVNT's P/E ratio is 20.62. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to AVNT's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to AVNT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check AVNT's competition here
FUL vs HWKN Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, HWKN has a market cap of 3.2B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while HWKN trades at $156.76.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas HWKN's P/E ratio is 39.80. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to HWKN's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to HWKN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check HWKN's competition here
FUL vs CC Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, CC has a market cap of 3B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while CC trades at $20.44.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas CC's P/E ratio is -7.41. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CC's ROE of -1.64%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to CC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check CC's competition here
FUL vs LTHM Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, LTHM has a market cap of 3B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while LTHM trades at $16.51.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas LTHM's P/E ratio is 9.17. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to LTHM's ROE of +0.24%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to LTHM. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check LTHM's competition here
FUL vs WDFC Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, WDFC has a market cap of 2.9B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while WDFC trades at $219.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas WDFC's P/E ratio is 36.24. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to WDFC's ROE of +0.30%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to WDFC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check WDFC's competition here
FUL vs ASH Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, ASH has a market cap of 2.9B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while ASH trades at $66.12.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas ASH's P/E ratio is -4.22. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ASH's ROE of -0.38%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to ASH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check ASH's competition here
FUL vs OLN Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, OLN has a market cap of 2.8B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while OLN trades at $24.22.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas OLN's P/E ratio is -15.13. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to OLN's ROE of -0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to OLN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check OLN's competition here
FUL vs KWR Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, KWR has a market cap of 2.5B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while KWR trades at $144.42.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas KWR's P/E ratio is 572.30. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to KWR's ROE of +0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to KWR. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check KWR's competition here
FUL vs NGVT Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, NGVT has a market cap of 2.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while NGVT trades at $69.68.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas NGVT's P/E ratio is -16.10. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to NGVT's ROE of -1.56%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to NGVT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check NGVT's competition here
FUL vs MTX Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, MTX has a market cap of 2.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while MTX trades at $77.37.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas MTX's P/E ratio is 15.01. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to MTX's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to MTX. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check MTX's competition here
FUL vs IOSP Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, IOSP has a market cap of 2B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while IOSP trades at $83.78.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas IOSP's P/E ratio is 18.09. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to IOSP's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to IOSP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check IOSP's competition here
FUL vs PQG Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, PQG has a market cap of 1.9B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while PQG trades at $15.65.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas PQG's P/E ratio is -5.71. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to PQG's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to PQG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check PQG's competition here
FUL vs REX Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, REX has a market cap of 1.5B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while REX trades at $44.47.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas REX's P/E ratio is 15.78. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to REX's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to REX. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check REX's competition here
FUL vs LWLG Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, LWLG has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while LWLG trades at $9.59.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas LWLG's P/E ratio is -58.81. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to LWLG's ROE of -0.39%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to LWLG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check LWLG's competition here
FUL vs ECVT Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, ECVT has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while ECVT trades at $12.71.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas ECVT's P/E ratio is 75.21. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ECVT's ROE of -0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to ECVT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check ECVT's competition here
FUL vs ODC Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, ODC has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while ODC trades at $93.79.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas ODC's P/E ratio is 25.83. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ODC's ROE of +0.20%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to ODC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check ODC's competition here
FUL vs CCF Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, CCF has a market cap of 1.2B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while CCF trades at $127.49.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas CCF's P/E ratio is 36.64. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CCF's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to CCF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check CCF's competition here
FUL vs SCL Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, SCL has a market cap of 1.2B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while SCL trades at $53.16.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas SCL's P/E ratio is -84.60. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to SCL's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to SCL. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check SCL's competition here
FUL vs GPRE Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, GPRE has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while GPRE trades at $14.86.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas GPRE's P/E ratio is -82.22. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to GPRE's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to GPRE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check GPRE's competition here
FUL vs KOP Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, KOP has a market cap of 804.1M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while KOP trades at $42.12.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas KOP's P/E ratio is 11.09. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to KOP's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to KOP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check KOP's competition here
FUL vs KRO Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, KRO has a market cap of 752.4M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while KRO trades at $6.63.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas KRO's P/E ratio is -5.59. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to KRO's ROE of -0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to KRO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check KRO's competition here
FUL vs OEC Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, OEC has a market cap of 408.3M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while OEC trades at $7.48.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas OEC's P/E ratio is -4.58. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to OEC's ROE of -0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to OEC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check OEC's competition here
FUL vs ALTO Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, ALTO has a market cap of 407.6M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while ALTO trades at $5.77.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas ALTO's P/E ratio is 14.22. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ALTO's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to ALTO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check ALTO's competition here
FUL vs GEVO Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, GEVO has a market cap of 365.1M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while GEVO trades at $1.53.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas GEVO's P/E ratio is -10.71. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to GEVO's ROE of -0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to GEVO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check GEVO's competition here
FUL vs HDSN Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, HDSN has a market cap of 233.1M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while HDSN trades at $5.65.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas HDSN's P/E ratio is 17.31. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to HDSN's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to HDSN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check HDSN's competition here
FUL vs CMT Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, CMT has a market cap of 207M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while CMT trades at $23.82.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas CMT's P/E ratio is 20.95. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CMT's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to CMT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check CMT's competition here
FUL vs FSI Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, FSI has a market cap of 81.3M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while FSI trades at $6.30.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas FSI's P/E ratio is 106.33. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FSI's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to FSI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check FSI's competition here
FUL vs NTIC Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, NTIC has a market cap of 76M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while NTIC trades at $8.09.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas NTIC's P/E ratio is -89.00. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to NTIC's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to NTIC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check NTIC's competition here
FUL vs LOOP Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, LOOP has a market cap of 48.4M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while LOOP trades at $1.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas LOOP's P/E ratio is -3.85. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to LOOP's ROE of +1.96%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to LOOP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check LOOP's competition here
FUL vs VNTR Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, VNTR has a market cap of 31.4M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while VNTR trades at $0.27.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas VNTR's P/E ratio is -0.17. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to VNTR's ROE of -0.41%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to VNTR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check VNTR's competition here
FUL vs YMAT Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, YMAT has a market cap of 12.1M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while YMAT trades at $0.71.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas YMAT's P/E ratio is -0.60. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to YMAT's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to YMAT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check YMAT's competition here
FUL vs SNES Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, SNES has a market cap of 9.2M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while SNES trades at $1.69.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas SNES's P/E ratio is -1.63. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to SNES's ROE of -0.76%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to SNES. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check SNES's competition here
FUL vs GURE Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, GURE has a market cap of 6.5M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while GURE trades at $4.50.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas GURE's P/E ratio is -0.09. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to GURE's ROE of -0.44%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to GURE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check GURE's competition here
FUL vs TSE Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, TSE has a market cap of 4.5M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while TSE trades at $0.13.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas TSE's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to TSE's ROE of +0.59%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to TSE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check TSE's competition here
FUL vs CNEY Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, CNEY has a market cap of 2.7M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while CNEY trades at $0.86.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas CNEY's P/E ratio is -0.04. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CNEY's ROE of -0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to CNEY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check CNEY's competition here
FUL vs DNMR Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, DNMR has a market cap of 1.1M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while DNMR trades at $0.35.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas DNMR's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to DNMR's ROE of -0.47%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to DNMR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check DNMR's competition here
FUL vs CRKN Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, CRKN has a market cap of 434.6K. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while CRKN trades at $0.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas CRKN's P/E ratio is 0.00. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to CRKN's ROE of -0.69%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to CRKN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check CRKN's competition here
FUL vs HGAS Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, HGAS has a market cap of 217K. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while HGAS trades at $0.03.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas HGAS's P/E ratio is -1.12. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to HGAS's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to HGAS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check HGAS's competition here
FUL vs BSLK Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, BSLK has a market cap of 110.5K. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while BSLK trades at $0.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas BSLK's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BSLK's ROE of +1.98%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to BSLK. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check BSLK's competition here
FUL vs BSLKW Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, BSLKW has a market cap of 93K. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while BSLKW trades at $0.02.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas BSLKW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to BSLKW's ROE of +1.98%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to BSLKW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check BSLKW's competition here
FUL vs HGASW Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, HGASW has a market cap of 27.1K. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while HGASW trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas HGASW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to HGASW's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to HGASW. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check HGASW's competition here
FUL vs MOOV Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, MOOV has a market cap of 1.1K. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while MOOV trades at $0.00.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas MOOV's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to MOOV's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, Volatility data is not available for a full comparison. FUL has daily volatility of 2.25 and MOOV has daily volatility of N/A.Check MOOV's competition here
FUL vs GCP Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, GCP has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while GCP trades at $32.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas GCP's P/E ratio is 177.83. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to GCP's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to GCP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check GCP's competition here
FUL vs ARG Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, ARG has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while ARG trades at $142.95.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas ARG's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ARG's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to ARG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check ARG's competition here
FUL vs KMG Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, KMG has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while KMG trades at $76.14.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas KMG's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to KMG's ROE of +0.22%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to KMG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check KMG's competition here
FUL vs AMRS Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, AMRS has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while AMRS trades at $0.05.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas AMRS's P/E ratio is -0.04. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to AMRS's ROE of +4.62%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to AMRS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check AMRS's competition here
FUL vs ZY Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, ZY has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while ZY trades at $2.43.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas ZY's P/E ratio is -0.67. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to ZY's ROE of +2.16%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to ZY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check ZY's competition here
FUL vs AVTR-PA Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, AVTR-PA has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while AVTR-PA trades at $90.81.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas AVTR-PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to AVTR-PA's ROE of -0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to AVTR-PA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check AVTR-PA's competition here
FUL vs FOE Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, FOE has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while FOE trades at $22.01.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas FOE's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to FOE's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to FOE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check FOE's competition here
FUL vs KRA Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, KRA has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while KRA trades at $46.49.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas KRA's P/E ratio is 8.92. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to KRA's ROE of +0.25%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to KRA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check KRA's competition here
FUL vs TREC Comparison June 2026
FUL plays a significant role within the Basic Materials sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, FUL stands at 3.4B. In comparison, TREC has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $62.42, while TREC trades at N/A.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
FUL currently has a P/E ratio of 21.46, whereas TREC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.08%, compared to TREC's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to TREC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check TREC's competition here