vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Chemours Co (CC) and FULLER H B CO (FUL), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Chemours Co is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.3B vs $892.0M, roughly 1.5× FULLER H B CO). FULLER H B CO runs the higher net margin — -3.5% vs 7.5%, a 11.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Chemours Co posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (-2.1% vs -2.8%). Chemours Co produced more free cash flow last quarter ($92.0M vs $68.9M). Over the past eight quarters, FULLER H B CO's revenue compounded faster (5.0% CAGR vs -1.2%).
The Chemours Company is an American chemical company that was founded in July 2015 as a spin-off from DuPont. It has its corporate headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware, United States. Chemours is the manufacturer of Teflon, the brand name of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), known for its anti-stick properties. It also produces titanium dioxide and refrigerant gases.
H.B. Fuller Company is an American multinational adhesives manufacturing company headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. H.B. Fuller manufactures more than 20,000 products for a variety of applications, including those used in construction, engineering, electronics, hygiene products, and food packaging. Its products are made at 81 manufacturing facilities in 26 countries. As of 2024, it was the fourth-largest manufacturer of adhesives and sealants in the world, employed approximately 7,500 peop...
CC vs FUL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q3 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.3B | $892.0M |
| Net Profit | $-47.0M | $67.2M |
| Gross Margin | 11.7% | 32.0% |
| Operating Margin | — | 12.3% |
| Net Margin | -3.5% | 7.5% |
| Revenue YoY | -2.1% | -2.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | -261.5% | 21.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.32 | $1.22 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.5B | $892.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.6B | $898.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | $917.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.4B | $810.4M |
| Q4 25 | $-47.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $46.0M | $67.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-380.0M | $41.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-5.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-13.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-32.0M | $55.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $60.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $54.0M | $31.0M |
| Q4 25 | 11.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 15.6% | 32.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.2% | 31.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 17.3% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 19.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.0% | 30.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 20.9% | 29.5% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.5% | 12.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | -15.4% | 11.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -0.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.1% | 11.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.1% | 8.3% |
| Q4 25 | -3.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.1% | 7.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -23.5% | 4.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | -0.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -1.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.1% | 6.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.9% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 4.0% | 3.8% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.32 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.31 | $1.22 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.53 | $0.76 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.03 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.07 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.22 | $0.98 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.39 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.36 | $0.55 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $670.0M | $122.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $4.1B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $250.0M | $2.0B |
| Total Assets | $7.4B | $5.2B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 16.40× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $670.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $613.0M | $122.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $502.0M | $96.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $464.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $713.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $596.0M | $131.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $604.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $746.0M | $165.2M |
| Q4 25 | $4.1B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.1B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.1B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.1B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.1B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.0B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.0B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.0B | — |
| Q4 25 | $250.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $274.0M | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $228.0M | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $566.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $571.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $643.0M | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $714.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $753.0M | $1.8B |
| Q4 25 | $7.4B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.5B | $5.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.5B | $5.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.4B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.5B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.5B | $5.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.2B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $8.0B | $4.7B |
| Q4 25 | 16.40× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.96× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.99× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.18× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.11× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.20× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.53× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.27× | — |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $137.0M | $99.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $92.0M | $68.9M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 6.9% | 7.7% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 3.4% | 3.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 1.47× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $51.0M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $137.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $146.0M | $99.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $93.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-112.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $138.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $139.0M | $169.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-620.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-290.0M | $47.4M |
| Q4 25 | $92.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $105.0M | $68.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $50.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-196.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $29.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $63.0M | $99.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-693.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-392.0M | $4.1M |
| Q4 25 | 6.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.0% | 7.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.1% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -14.3% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.2% | 10.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -44.6% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -28.8% | 0.5% |
| Q4 25 | 3.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.7% | 3.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.7% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.0% | 7.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.7% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.5% | 5.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.17× | 1.47× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 3.06× | ||
| Q2 24 | -10.33× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -5.37× | 1.53× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
CC
| Titanium Technologies | $563.0M | 42% |
| Thermal And Specialized Solutions | $443.0M | 33% |
| Advanced Performance Materials | $312.0M | 23% |
| Other Non-Reportable Segment | $12.0M | 1% |
FUL
| Hygiene Health And Consumable Adhesives | $386.1M | 43% |
| Engineering Adhesives | $272.3M | 31% |
| Building Adhesives Solutions | $233.7M | 26% |
