H.B. Fuller Company
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 | $61.11 | -1.77% | 3.3B | 33.21 | $1.84 | +1.50% |
| LIN | $477.85 | -0.79% | 224.1B | 33.99 | $14.06 | +1.21% |
| SHW | $367.00 | -1.59% | 91.4B | 36.41 | $10.07 | +0.84% |
| ECL | $278.36 | -1.89% | 78.9B | 37.16 | $7.49 | +0.90% |
| APD | $294.17 | -1.71% | 65.4B | 41.65 | $7.06 | +2.42% |
| DD | $76.96 | -0.47% | 32.2B | 452.71 | $0.17 | +2.06% |
| PPG | $112.14 | -1.86% | 25.3B | 20.27 | $5.53 | +2.45% |
| LYB | $57.05 | -2.93% | 18.3B | 121.37 | $0.47 | +9.56% |
| IFF | $67.14 | -1.24% | 17.2B | -43.58 | -$1.54 | +2.39% |
| RPM | $125.73 | -1.44% | 16.2B | 23.51 | $5.35 | +1.62% |
Stock Comparison
FUL vs LIN Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, LIN has a market cap of 224.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while LIN trades at $477.85.
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 33.21, whereas LIN's P/E ratio is 33.99. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to LIN's ROE of +0.17%. 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 August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, SHW has a market cap of 91.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while SHW trades at $367.00.
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 33.21, whereas SHW's P/E ratio is 36.41. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to SHW's ROE of +0.61%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to SHW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check SHW's competition here
FUL vs ECL Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, ECL has a market cap of 78.9B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while ECL trades at $278.36.
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 33.21, whereas ECL's P/E ratio is 37.16. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to ECL's ROE of +0.24%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to ECL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check ECL's competition here
FUL vs APD Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, APD has a market cap of 65.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while APD trades at $294.17.
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 33.21, whereas APD's P/E ratio is 41.65. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to APD's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to APD. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check APD's competition here
FUL vs DD Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, DD has a market cap of 32.2B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while DD trades at $76.96.
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 33.21, whereas DD's P/E ratio is 452.71. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to DD's ROE of -0.01%. 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 PPG Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, PPG has a market cap of 25.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while PPG trades at $112.14.
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 33.21, whereas PPG's P/E ratio is 20.27. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to PPG's ROE of +0.14%. 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 LYB Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, LYB has a market cap of 18.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while LYB trades at $57.05.
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 33.21, whereas LYB's P/E ratio is 121.37. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to LYB's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to LYB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check LYB's competition here
FUL vs IFF Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, IFF has a market cap of 17.2B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while IFF trades at $67.14.
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 33.21, whereas IFF's P/E ratio is -43.58. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to IFF's ROE of -0.03%. 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 RPM Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, RPM has a market cap of 16.2B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while RPM trades at $125.73.
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 33.21, whereas RPM's P/E ratio is 23.51. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to RPM's ROE of +0.25%. 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 WLK Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, WLK has a market cap of 11.2B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while WLK trades at $87.23.
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 33.21, whereas WLK's P/E ratio is -164.64. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to WLK's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to WLK. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check WLK's competition here
FUL vs ALB Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, ALB has a market cap of 9.6B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while ALB trades at $81.29.
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 33.21, whereas ALB's P/E ratio is -8.71. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to ALB's ROE of -0.09%. 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 AVTR Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, AVTR has a market cap of 9B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while AVTR trades at $13.21.
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 33.21, whereas AVTR's P/E ratio is 13.08. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to AVTR's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to AVTR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check AVTR's competition here
FUL vs EMN Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, EMN has a market cap of 7.9B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while EMN trades at $68.46.
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 33.21, whereas EMN's P/E ratio is 9.63. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to EMN's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to EMN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check EMN's competition here
FUL vs NEU Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, NEU has a market cap of 7.5B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while NEU trades at $800.41.
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 33.21, whereas NEU's P/E ratio is 15.87. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to NEU's ROE of +0.32%. 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 August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, AXTA has a market cap of 6.8B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while AXTA trades at $31.33.
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 33.21, whereas AXTA's P/E ratio is 15.36. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to AXTA's ROE of +0.22%. 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 SQM Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, SQM has a market cap of 6.7B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while SQM trades at $46.65.
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 33.21, whereas SQM's P/E ratio is 27.92. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to SQM's ROE of +0.09%. 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 ALTM Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, ALTM has a market cap of 6.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, 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 33.21, whereas ALTM's P/E ratio is 64.89. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to ALTM's ROE of +0.02%. 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 ESI Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, ESI has a market cap of 6.2B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while ESI trades at $25.67.
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 33.21, whereas ESI's P/E ratio is 25.91. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to ESI's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to ESI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check ESI's competition here
FUL vs IKNX Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, IKNX has a market cap of 5.9B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, 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 33.21, whereas IKNX's P/E ratio is -153.39. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to IKNX's ROE of -0.04%. 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 BCPC Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, BCPC has a market cap of 5.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while BCPC trades at $162.06.
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 33.21, whereas BCPC's P/E ratio is 37.17. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to BCPC's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to BCPC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check BCPC's competition here
FUL vs SXT Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, SXT has a market cap of 4.8B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while SXT trades at $113.13.
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 33.21, whereas SXT's P/E ratio is 35.70. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, 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 SSL Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, SSL has a market cap of 4.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while SSL trades at $6.98.
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 33.21, whereas SSL's P/E ratio is -1.58. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to SSL's ROE of -0.34%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to SSL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check SSL's competition here
FUL vs CBT Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, CBT has a market cap of 4.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while CBT trades at $81.56.
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 33.21, whereas CBT's P/E ratio is 10.67. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to CBT's ROE of +0.30%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to CBT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check CBT's competition here
FUL vs HWKN Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, HWKN has a market cap of 3.6B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while HWKN trades at $170.21.
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 33.21, whereas HWKN's P/E ratio is 42.03. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to HWKN's ROE of +0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to HWKN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check HWKN's competition here
FUL vs AVNT Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, AVNT has a market cap of 3.4B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while AVNT trades at $37.66.
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 33.21, whereas AVNT's P/E ratio is 29.18. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to AVNT's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to AVNT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check AVNT's competition here
FUL vs PRM Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, PRM has a market cap of 3.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while PRM trades at $21.21.
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 33.21, whereas PRM's P/E ratio is 39.28. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to PRM's ROE of +0.07%. 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 LTHM Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, LTHM has a market cap of 3B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, 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 33.21, whereas LTHM's P/E ratio is 9.17. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, 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 August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, WDFC has a market cap of 3B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while WDFC trades at $219.12.
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 33.21, whereas WDFC's P/E ratio is 34.40. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to WDFC's ROE of +0.36%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to WDFC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check WDFC's competition here
FUL vs OLN Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, OLN has a market cap of 2.6B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while OLN trades at $22.95.
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 33.21, whereas OLN's P/E ratio is -208.55. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to OLN's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to OLN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check OLN's competition here
FUL vs ASH Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, ASH has a market cap of 2.6B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while ASH trades at $56.25.
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 33.21, whereas ASH's P/E ratio is -3.13. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to ASH's ROE of -0.35%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is more volatile compared to ASH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check ASH's competition here
FUL vs KWR Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, KWR has a market cap of 2.5B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while KWR trades at $144.83.
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 33.21, whereas KWR's P/E ratio is -337.09. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to KWR's ROE of -0.01%. 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 CC Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, CC has a market cap of 2.3B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while CC trades at $15.21.
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 33.21, whereas CC's P/E ratio is -5.55. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to CC's ROE of -0.81%. 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 IOSP Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, IOSP has a market cap of 2.2B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while IOSP trades at $86.62.
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 33.21, whereas IOSP's P/E ratio is 112.49. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to IOSP's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to IOSP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check IOSP's competition here
FUL vs NGVT Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, NGVT has a market cap of 2.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while NGVT trades at $56.87.
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 33.21, whereas NGVT's P/E ratio is -9.56. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to NGVT's ROE of -1.13%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to NGVT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check NGVT's competition here
FUL vs MTX Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, MTX has a market cap of 2B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while MTX trades at $63.97.
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 33.21, whereas MTX's P/E ratio is 6398.00. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to MTX's ROE of +0.00%. 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 PQG Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, PQG has a market cap of 1.9B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, 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 33.21, whereas PQG's P/E ratio is -5.71. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, 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 CCF Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, CCF has a market cap of 1.2B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, 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 33.21, whereas CCF's P/E ratio is 36.64. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, 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 August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, SCL has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while SCL trades at $50.55.
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 33.21, whereas SCL's P/E ratio is 19.86. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to SCL's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to SCL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check SCL's competition here
FUL vs ECVT Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, ECVT has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while ECVT trades at $9.08.
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 33.21, whereas ECVT's P/E ratio is -75.71. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to ECVT's ROE of -0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to ECVT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check ECVT's competition here
FUL vs REX Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, REX has a market cap of 999.7M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while REX trades at $60.68.
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 33.21, whereas REX's P/E ratio is 18.79. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to REX's ROE of +0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to REX. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check REX's competition here
FUL vs ODC Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, ODC has a market cap of 812.8M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while ODC trades at $58.65.
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 33.21, whereas ODC's P/E ratio is 17.26. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to ODC's ROE of +0.22%. 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 KRO Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, KRO has a market cap of 723.7M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while KRO 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 33.21, whereas KRO's P/E ratio is 10.66. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to KRO's ROE of +0.08%. 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 GPRE Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, GPRE has a market cap of 617M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while GPRE trades at $9.41.
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 33.21, whereas GPRE's P/E ratio is -4.06. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to GPRE's ROE of -0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to GPRE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check GPRE's competition here
FUL vs OEC Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, OEC has a market cap of 587M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while OEC trades at $10.45.
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 33.21, whereas OEC's P/E ratio is 38.72. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to OEC's ROE of +0.03%. 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 KOP Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, KOP has a market cap of 586.3M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while KOP trades at $29.70.
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 33.21, whereas KOP's P/E ratio is 39.65. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to KOP's ROE of +0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to KOP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check KOP's competition here
FUL vs HDSN Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, HDSN has a market cap of 430.6M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while HDSN trades at $9.86.
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 33.21, whereas HDSN's P/E ratio is 24.65. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to HDSN's ROE of +0.07%. 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 GEVO Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, GEVO has a market cap of 430.5M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while GEVO trades at $1.78.
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 33.21, whereas GEVO's P/E ratio is -7.12. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to GEVO's ROE of -0.12%. 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 LWLG Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, LWLG has a market cap of 324.5M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while LWLG trades at $2.51.
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 33.21, whereas LWLG's P/E ratio is -14.76. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to LWLG's ROE of -0.13%. 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 ADUR Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, ADUR has a market cap of 320.1M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while ADUR trades at $10.93.
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 33.21, whereas ADUR's P/E ratio is -39.04. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to ADUR's ROE of -0.99%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to ADUR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check ADUR's competition here
FUL vs CMT Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, CMT has a market cap of 160.2M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while CMT trades at $18.75.
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 33.21, whereas CMT's P/E ratio is 17.32. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to CMT's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to CMT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check CMT's competition here
FUL vs FSI Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, FSI has a market cap of 107.3M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while FSI trades at $8.50.
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 33.21, whereas FSI's P/E ratio is 36.87. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to FSI's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to FSI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check FSI's competition here
FUL vs TSE Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, TSE has a market cap of 90.1M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while TSE trades at $2.51.
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 33.21, whereas TSE's P/E ratio is -0.23. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to TSE's ROE of -1.83%. 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 ALTO Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, ALTO has a market cap of 80.5M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while ALTO trades at $1.04.
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 33.21, whereas ALTO's P/E ratio is -1.13. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to ALTO's ROE of -0.29%. 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 NTIC Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, NTIC has a market cap of 72.6M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while NTIC trades at $7.66.
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 33.21, whereas NTIC's P/E ratio is 24.71. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to NTIC's ROE of +0.04%. 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 August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, LOOP has a market cap of 72.5M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while LOOP trades at $1.52.
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 33.21, whereas LOOP's P/E ratio is -5.43. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to LOOP's ROE of +12.09%. 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 August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, VNTR has a market cap of 31.4M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, 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 33.21, whereas VNTR's P/E ratio is -0.17. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, 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 SNES Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, SNES has a market cap of 24.1M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while SNES trades at $4.66.
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 33.21, whereas SNES's P/E ratio is -1.07. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to SNES's ROE of -1.11%. 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 August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, GURE has a market cap of 10M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while GURE trades at $0.75.
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 33.21, whereas GURE's P/E ratio is -0.31. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to GURE's ROE of -0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to GURE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check GURE's competition here
FUL vs CNEY Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, CNEY has a market cap of 7M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while CNEY trades at $2.28.
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 33.21, whereas CNEY's P/E ratio is -0.02. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to CNEY's ROE of -0.13%. 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 August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, DNMR has a market cap of 1.1M. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, 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 33.21, whereas DNMR's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to DNMR's ROE of -0.31%. 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 August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, CRKN has a market cap of 956K. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while CRKN trades at $0.55.
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 33.21, whereas CRKN's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to CRKN's ROE of -2.21%. 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 August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, HGAS has a market cap of 726.2K. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, while HGAS trades at $0.11.
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 33.21, whereas HGAS's P/E ratio is -3.74. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to HGAS's ROE of +1.17%. Regarding short-term risk, FUL is less volatile compared to HGAS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for FUL.Check HGAS's competition here
FUL vs HGASW Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, HGASW has a market cap of 18K. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, 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 33.21, whereas HGASW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to HGASW's ROE of +1.17%. 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 August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, MOOV has a market cap of 1.1K. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, 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 33.21, whereas MOOV's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, 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 1.73 and MOOV has daily volatility of N/A.Check MOOV's competition here
FUL vs ZY Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, ZY has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, 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 33.21, whereas ZY's P/E ratio is -0.67. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, 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 August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, AVTR-PA has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, 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 33.21, whereas AVTR-PA's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, compared to AVTR-PA's ROE of +0.12%. 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 KRA Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, KRA has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, 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 33.21, whereas KRA's P/E ratio is 8.92. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, 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 AMRS Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, AMRS has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, 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 33.21, whereas AMRS's P/E ratio is -0.04. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, 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 GCP Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, GCP has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, 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 33.21, whereas GCP's P/E ratio is 177.83. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, 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 FOE Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, FOE has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, 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 33.21, whereas FOE's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, 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 TREC Comparison August 2025
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 3.3B. In comparison, TREC has a market cap of 0. Regarding current trading prices, FUL is priced at $61.11, 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 33.21, whereas TREC's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, FUL's ROE is +0.06%, 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