PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
TGT vs. FUL
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends
Financials

Performance

TGT vs. FUL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Target Corporation (TGT) and H.B. Fuller Company (FUL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TGT achieves a 50.73% return, which is significantly higher than FUL's -5.87% return. Over the past 10 years, TGT has outperformed FUL with an annualized return of 10.20%, while FUL has yielded a comparatively lower 3.18% annualized return.


TGT

1D
-0.01%
1M
10.90%
6M
39.70%
YTD
50.73%
1Y
50.06%
3Y*
6.67%
5Y*
-8.42%
10Y*
10.20%
ALL TIME*
11.54%

FUL

1D
-0.14%
1M
-3.03%
6M
-6.87%
YTD
-5.87%
1Y
-0.01%
3Y*
-7.92%
5Y*
-1.81%
10Y*
3.18%
ALL TIME*
9.26%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$35.21M$42.96M$45.53M
$431.21M$508.68M$632.93M

TGT vs. FUL - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
TGT
Target Corporation
50.73%-24.50%-2.27%-1.35%-34.24%32.91%40.47%100.17%4.67%-5.84%
FUL
H.B. Fuller Company
-5.87%-10.46%-16.19%14.97%-10.59%57.84%2.15%22.42%-19.84%12.79%

Correlation

The correlation between TGT and FUL is 0.35, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.35

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.39

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.44

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.38

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 26, 1990

0.30

The correlation between TGT and FUL shifts across timeframes, from 0.30 (all time) to 0.44 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Fundamentals

Market Cap

TGT:

$65.62B

FUL:

$2.97B

EPS

TGT:

$7.93

FUL:

$3.36

PE Ratio

TGT:

18.22

FUL:

16.47

PS Ratio

TGT:

0.62

FUL:

0.87

PB Ratio

TGT:

4.02

FUL:

1.46

Total Revenue (TTM)

TGT:

$105.47B

FUL:

$3.51B

Gross Profit (TTM)

TGT:

$27.05B

FUL:

$1.14B

EBITDA (TTM)

TGT:

$8.20B

FUL:

$511.88M

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

TGT vs. FUL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

TGT
TGT Risk / Return Rank: 8484
Overall Rank
TGT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
TGT Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
TGT Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
TGT Calmar Ratio Rank: 8484
Calmar Ratio Rank
TGT Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
Martin Ratio Rank

FUL
FUL Risk / Return Rank: 4242
Overall Rank
FUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4545
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 3939
Sortino Ratio Rank
FUL Omega Ratio Rank: 3939
Omega Ratio Rank
FUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 4444
Calmar Ratio Rank
FUL Martin Ratio Rank: 4444
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

TGT vs. FUL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Target Corporation (TGT) and H.B. Fuller Company (FUL). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.


TGTFULDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.64

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.99

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

1.03

+0.24

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.57

-0.00

+2.57

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.07

-0.00

+6.07

TGT vs. FUL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TGT Sharpe Ratio is 1.64, which is higher than the FUL Sharpe Ratio of -0.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TGT and FUL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

TGT vs. FUL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TGT drawdown since its inception was -64.40%, smaller than the maximum FUL drawdown of -68.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TGT and FUL.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


TGTFULDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-64.40%

-68.25%

+3.85%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-19.58%

-26.97%

+7.39%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-49.78%

-43.45%

-6.33%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-64.40%

-43.45%

-20.95%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-64.40%

-56.29%

-8.11%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-37.31%

-33.83%

-3.48%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-17.17%

-18.80%

+1.63%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.27%

9.52%

-1.25%

Volatility

TGT vs. FUL - Volatility Comparison

Target Corporation (TGT) and H.B. Fuller Company (FUL) have volatilities of 8.19% and 8.05%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


TGTFULDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.19%

8.05%

+0.14%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

22.84%

27.24%

-4.40%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

30.72%

33.78%

-3.06%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

35.90%

29.76%

+6.14%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

33.49%

31.21%

+2.28%

Dividends

TGT vs. FUL - Dividend Comparison

TGT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.16%, more than FUL's 1.74% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FUL
H.B. Fuller Company
1.74%1.56%1.29%0.99%1.03%0.82%1.25%1.23%1.44%1.10%1.14%1.40%
TGT
Target Corporation
3.16%4.62%3.28%3.06%2.66%1.37%1.52%2.03%3.81%3.74%3.21%2.97%

Financials

TGT vs. FUL - Financials Comparison

This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Target Corporation and H.B. Fuller Company. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.


Quarterly
Annual

Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities


Values in USD except per share items

TGT vs. FUL - Profitability Comparison

The chart below illustrates the profitability comparison between Target Corporation and H.B. Fuller Company over time, highlighting three key metrics: Gross Profit Margin, Operating Margin, and Net Profit Margin.

Gross Margin
Operating Margin
Net Margin
Quarterly
Annual

TGT - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Target Corporation reported a gross profit of 6.46B and revenue of 24.53B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 26.4%.

FUL - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, H.B. Fuller Company reported a gross profit of 322.24M and revenue of 950.27M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 33.9%.

TGT - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Target Corporation reported an operating income of 1.30B and revenue of 24.53B, resulting in an operating margin of 5.3%.

FUL - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, H.B. Fuller Company reported an operating income of 122.83M and revenue of 950.27M, resulting in an operating margin of 12.9%.

TGT - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Target Corporation reported a net income of 942.00M and revenue of 24.53B, resulting in a net margin of 3.8%.

FUL - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, H.B. Fuller Company reported a net income of 67.81M and revenue of 950.27M, resulting in a net margin of 7.1%.


Frequently Asked Questions


TGT and FUL have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

TGT has higher volatility (8.19%) compared to FUL (8.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TGT dropped -64.40% vs FUL's -68.25%.

TGT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.64 vs -0.00), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for TGT and FUL

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer