Innospec vs Quaker Chemical
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRA’s take AI analyst
I put Innospec and Quaker Chemical side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- Quaker Chemical is the larger business, with $1.9B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $1.8B for Innospec.
- Quaker Chemical grew revenue faster (2.7%, against −3.7%).
- Innospec kept more of each dollar of sales as operating profit (7.3% operating margin, against 2.8%).
- Innospec turned more of its sales into free cash flow (5.0% FCF margin, against 4.3%).
- Innospec earned a higher return on the capital invested in it (11.1%, against 1.3%).
- Investors pay more for each dollar of Quaker Chemical’s earnings: a P/E of 27.6x against 20.1x for Innospec.
Who comes out ahead
Of the 11 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
Innospec
IOSP
8/11
5-year growthOperating marginNet marginFCF marginReturn on capitalReturn on equityPiotroski F-scoreNet debt / EBITDA
Quaker Chemical
KWR
3/11
Revenue growthGross marginShare count change
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | IOSP FY25 | KWR FY25 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $2.4B | $2.7B |
| Revenue | $1.8B | $1.9B |
| Free cash flow | $88.0M | $80.6M |
| Net income | $117M | −$2.5M |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | −3.7% | 2.7% |
| 5-year growth | 8.3% | 5.9% |
| Share count change | −0.5% | −2.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 27.7% | 36.0% |
| Operating margin | 7.3% | 2.8% |
| Net margin | 6.6% | −0.1% |
| FCF margin | 5.0% | 4.3% |
| Return on capital | 11.1% | 1.3% |
| Return on equity | 9.2% | −0.2% |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | −$293M | $726M |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −1.7x | 6.1x |
| Dividends and buybacks | $66.3M | $75.9M |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | 20.1x | 27.6x |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 5 |
Ten years
Revenue
Operating margin
Free cash flow
Return on capital
Each company's latest fiscal year; fiscal years end in different months. The best value in each row is highlighted where higher (or lower) is clearly better. Not investment advice.