Corning vs Howmet Aerospace
GLW and HWM side by side, both in rolling, drawing, and extruding of nonferrous. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How GLW and HWM compare
Corning is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Howmet Aerospace ($106B against $79.4B).
On earnings, Howmet Aerospace is cheaper: it trades at 39.0× trailing earnings, against 49.9× for Corning.
Howmet Aerospace grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (22.0% versus 18.8% for Corning).
Howmet Aerospace keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 21.1% compared with 12.1% at Corning.
Both pay dividends: Corning yields 0.91% and Howmet Aerospace 0.25%.
Howmet Aerospace scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 16 for Corning), 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 | GLW | HWM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $106B | $79.4B |
| Share price | $123.31 | $199.22 |
| Change, 1 year | 36.6% | −2.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 222% | 496% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.09 | 1.15 |
| Employees | 11K | 730 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 49.9× | 39.0× (better) |
| P/S | 6.0× (better) | 8.2× |
| P/B | 7.8× (better) | 13.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 38.5× | 27.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 41.2× |
| PEG | 8.43 | 0.79 (better) |
| FCF yield | – | 2.4% |
| Fair value | $71.27 | $147.92 |
| Margin of safety | −73.0% | −34.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 18.8% | 22.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.7% | 9.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 57.4% (better) | 41.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 56.3% (better) | 43.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 27.6% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 36.5% | 36.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 16.5% | 28.1% (better) |
| Net margin | 12.1% | 21.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 19.8% |
| Return on equity | 17.1% | 37.7% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 13.0% | 25.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.60 (better) | 0.77 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.94 | 1.29 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 8.0× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.72 | 1.86 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.90 | 8.52 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.91% (better) | 0.25% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 4.9% | 85.6% (better) |
| Buyback yield | – | 1.6% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.91% | 1.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 73.2% | 91.4% |
| Held by insiders | 0.20% | 1.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$98.1M | −$22.9M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.0% | 2.6% |
Go deeper
- GLW stock overview
- GLW income statement
- GLW valuation and score
- HWM stock overview
- HWM income statement
- HWM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.