COMPARE · Data as of August 24, 2026

CTVA vs IOSP

Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CTVA scored 42.8, IOSP scored 60.9 — IOSP leads.
Compare another set
CTVA
Corteva, Inc.
Agricultural Inputs · Quality-Growth
42.8
$82.81 · $55.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
18.1
IOSP leads
IOSP
Innospec Inc.
Specialty Chemicals · Quality-Growth
60.9
$94.73 · $2.3B
fundamentals as of
  • CheapestIOSP19.3x
  • Fastest growthCTVA+3.7%
  • Strongest balance sheetIOSP0.04
  • Highest qualityIOSP65 / 100
  • Largest discount to fair valueIOSP-13%
THE BULL RANKINGS SCORECARD42.8/ 100 · BULL SCOREPEER MEDIANQUALITY59.3GROWTH41.7VALUE31.7
THE BULL RANKINGS SCORECARD60.9/ 100 · BULL SCOREPEER MEDIANQUALITY64.7GROWTH50.0VALUE69.8
CTVAIOSPQuality59.364.7Growth41.750.0Value31.769.8
cheap & fastrevenue growth →← cheaper (lower multiple)-7%14%14x55xCTVAIOSP

Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.

FCFCTVA$629mIOSP$107m
RevCTVA+3.7%IOSP+2.9%
D/ECTVA0.19IOSP0.04
P/ECTVA49.6xIOSP19.3x
PEGCTVA1.31IOSP0.66
CTVA
stronger →← stronger
IOSP
59
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
65
42
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
32
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
70
IOSP is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
CTVA
IOSP
$629mC+
FCF
$107mC
+3.7%C+
Rev
+2.9%C
0.19B+
D/E
0.04A
49.6xC
P/E
19.3xB
1.31B
PEG
0.66A-
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
CTVA
IOSP
241% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
13% below
~37%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~11%/yr
-73%
1-yr DCF upside
-12%
-71%
5-yr DCF upside
+15%
-67%
10-yr DCF upside
+72%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
CTVA
Why this score
  • Raising its dividend
  • Short track record
IOSP
Why this score
  • Raising its dividend
  • Durable high returns
  • Cyclical growth
CTVACorteva, Inc.
Agricultural Inputs · $82.81 · beta 0.57
Why now
Agricultural Inputs · market cap $55.3b. 9% off the 52-week high of $90.97. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $92.10 (implying +11% upside).
Moat
$55.3b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Trailing P/E 50x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. ROE 4% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
IOSPInnospec Inc.
Specialty Chemicals · $94.73 · beta 0.91
Why now
Specialty Chemicals · market cap $2.3b. Trading near 52-week high of $95.01 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. PEG 0.66 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 3 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $101.00 (implying +7% upside).
Moat
Moat signals from the quantitative card are modest — profitability and capital efficiency are middle-of-pack. The thesis here depends on softer factors (switching costs, brand, distribution, regulatory protection) not captured by the quality-growth screen.
Risk
Trading within 0% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction.
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.

Where CTVA and IOSP diverge

On the headline score the gap is 18.1 points in favor of IOSP. The widest single difference is Value, where IOSP leads by 38.1 points.

Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.