Curtiss Wright vs Moog
CW and MOG.A side by side, both in industrial and commercial machinery and computer equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CW and MOG.A compare
Curtiss Wright is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as Moog ($17.6B against $11.5B).
On earnings, Moog is cheaper: it trades at 30.9× trailing earnings, against 32.8× for Curtiss Wright.
Moog grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (15.7% versus 10.5% for Curtiss Wright).
Curtiss Wright keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.8% compared with 8.7% at Moog.
Both pay dividends: Curtiss Wright yields 0.21% and Moog 0.33%.
Curtiss Wright scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 17 for Moog), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | CW | MOG.A |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $17.6B | $11.5B |
| Share price | $476.01 | $362.81 |
| Change, 1 year | −20.9% | 72.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 250% | 334% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.84 | 1.02 |
| Employees | 9,100 | 13K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 17 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 32.8× | 30.9× (better) |
| P/S | 4.8× | 2.7× (better) |
| P/B | 6.3× | 5.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 22.4× | 17.8× (better) |
| P/FCF | 28.1× (better) | 32.8× |
| PEG | 1.72 (better) | 2.07 |
| FCF yield | 3.6% (better) | 3.0% |
| Fair value | $335.41 | $310.23 |
| Margin of safety | −41.9% | −16.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.5% | 15.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.9% (better) | 6.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 19.9% | 76.9% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 22.6% | 77.4% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 21.8% | 92.1% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 37.7% (better) | 28.2% |
| Operating margin | 18.8% (better) | 13.3% |
| Net margin | 14.8% (better) | 8.7% |
| FCF margin | 17.1% (better) | 8.1% |
| Return on equity | 19.7% (better) | 18.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 16.3% | 16.5% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.35 (better) | 0.41 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.60 (better) | 1.22 |
| Interest coverage | 16.2× (better) | 8.6× |
| Current ratio | 1.60 | 2.09 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 6.37 (better) | 5.26 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.21% | 0.33% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 9.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 9 (better) | 5 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 6.5% | 8.9% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 2.6% (better) | 0.68% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.8% (better) | 1.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.8% | 89.3% |
| Held by insiders | 0.39% | 5.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$30.0M | −$5.7M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.1% | – |
Go deeper
- CW stock overview
- CW income statement
- CW valuation and score
- MOG.A stock overview
- MOG.A income statement
- MOG.A valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.