L3Harris Technologies vs Northrop Grumman
LHX 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 LHX and NOC compare
Northrop Grumman is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as L3Harris Technologies ($79.2B against $51.7B).
On earnings, Northrop Grumman is cheaper: it trades at 17.7× trailing earnings, against 25.9× for L3Harris Technologies.
Northrop Grumman grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.9% versus 5.3% for L3Harris Technologies).
Northrop Grumman keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.5% compared with 5.2% at L3Harris Technologies.
Both pay dividends: L3Harris Technologies yields 1.8% and Northrop Grumman 1.7%.
L3Harris Technologies scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 18 for Northrop Grumman), 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 | LHX | NOC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $51.7B | $79.2B |
| Share price | $277.61 | $557.54 |
| Change, 1 year | −3.2% | −4.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 23.9% | 53.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.63 | 0.29 |
| Employees | 45K | 95K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 18 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 25.9× | 17.7× (better) |
| P/S | 1.3× (better) | 1.8× |
| P/B | 2.6× (better) | 4.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.2× (better) | 15.0× |
| P/FCF | 14.2× (better) | 21.7× |
| PEG | 1.64 | – |
| FCF yield | 7.0% (better) | 4.6% |
| Fair value | $363.22 | $647.15 |
| Margin of safety | 23.6% (better) | 13.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.3% | 5.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 2.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 16.2% (better) | 14.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 15.1% | 16.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 1.6% | 8.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 25.6% | – |
| Operating margin | 10.6% | 10.7% (better) |
| Net margin | 5.2% | 10.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 9.2% (better) | 8.5% |
| Return on equity | 10.3% | 27.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 12.8% | 13.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.54 (better) | 0.85 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.49 (better) | 2.10 |
| Current ratio | 1.20 (better) | 1.17 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.80 | 3.13 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.8% (better) | 1.7% |
| Payout ratio | 45.5% | 29.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 4 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 9.7% |
| Buyback yield | 1.5% (better) | 1.0% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.2% (better) | 2.7% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 87.9% | 83.5% |
| Held by insiders | 0.32% | 0.22% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$11.8M (better) | −$26.4M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.4% | 1.6% |
Go deeper
- LHX stock overview
- LHX income statement
- LHX 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.