Leonardo DRS vs Northrop Grumman
DRS and NOC side by side, both in measuring, analyzing, and controlling instruments; photographic, medical and optical goods; watches and clocks. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DRS and NOC compare
Northrop Grumman is the larger company, worth 7.9 times as much as Leonardo DRS ($79.2B against $10.1B).
On earnings, Northrop Grumman is cheaper: it trades at 17.7× trailing earnings, against 31.7× for Leonardo DRS.
Leonardo DRS grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.5% versus 5.9% for Northrop Grumman).
Northrop Grumman keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.5% compared with 8.5% at Leonardo DRS.
Both pay dividends: Leonardo DRS yields 0.96% and Northrop Grumman 1.7%.
Northrop Grumman scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 16 for Leonardo DRS), 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 | DRS | NOC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.1B | $79.2B |
| Share price | $37.68 | $557.54 |
| Change, 1 year | −2.0% | −4.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 257% | 53.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.80 | 0.29 |
| Employees | 7,300 | 95K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 31.7× | 17.7× (better) |
| P/S | 2.7× | 1.8× (better) |
| P/B | 3.6× (better) | 4.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 20.1× | 15.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | 27.7× | 21.7× (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.6% | 4.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $37.78 | $647.15 |
| Margin of safety | 0.26% | 13.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.5% (better) | 5.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.6% (better) | 2.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 28.8% (better) | 14.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 28.0% (better) | 16.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 20.8% (better) | 8.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 24.9% | – |
| Operating margin | 10.5% | 10.7% (better) |
| Net margin | 8.5% | 10.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 9.6% (better) | 8.5% |
| Return on equity | 11.9% | 27.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 12.3% | 13.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.05 (better) | 0.85 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.24 | 2.10 (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.92 (better) | 1.17 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.10 (better) | 3.13 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.96% | 1.7% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 29.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 9.7% |
| Buyback yield | 0.26% | 1.0% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | 2.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 26.6% | 83.5% |
| Held by insiders | 0.32% | 0.22% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$8.1M (better) | −$26.4M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.2% | 1.6% |
Go deeper
- DRS stock overview
- DRS income statement
- DRS valuation and score
- NOC stock overview
- NOC income statement
- NOC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.