Lockheed Martin vs Northrop Grumman
LMT and NOC side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LMT and NOC compare
Lockheed Martin is the larger company, worth 1.9 times as much as Northrop Grumman ($147B against $79.2B).
On earnings, Northrop Grumman is cheaper: it trades at 17.7× trailing earnings, against 23.5× for Lockheed Martin.
Lockheed Martin grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (7.2% 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 8.2% at Lockheed Martin.
Both pay dividends: Lockheed Martin yields 2.2% and Northrop Grumman 1.7%.
Northrop Grumman scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 15 for Lockheed Martin), 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 | LMT | NOC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $147B | $79.2B |
| Share price | $636.95 | $557.54 |
| Change, 1 year | 31.2% | −4.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 87.4% | 53.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.33 | 0.29 |
| Employees | 110K | 95K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 23.5× | 17.7× (better) |
| P/S | 1.9× | 1.8× (better) |
| P/B | 16.8× | 4.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.9× | 15.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | 16.8× (better) | 21.7× |
| FCF yield | 5.9% (better) | 4.6% |
| Fair value | $480.46 | $647.15 |
| Margin of safety | −32.6% | 13.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 7.2% (better) | 5.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.8% (better) | 2.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 49.5% (better) | 14.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 52.8% (better) | 16.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −2.4% | 8.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 11.8% | – |
| Operating margin | 11.9% (better) | 10.7% |
| Net margin | 8.2% | 10.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 11.3% (better) | 8.5% |
| Return on equity | 89.2% (better) | 27.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 30.3% (better) | 13.1% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.34 | 0.85 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.83 (better) | 2.10 |
| Interest coverage | 8.2× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.19 (better) | 1.17 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.80 (better) | 3.13 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.2% (better) | 1.7% |
| Payout ratio | 50.5% | 29.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | 16 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 6.4% | 9.7% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 1.2% (better) | 1.0% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.4% (better) | 2.7% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 75.7% | 83.5% |
| Held by insiders | 0.07% | 0.22% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$124K (better) | −$26.4M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.2% | 1.6% |
Go deeper
- LMT stock overview
- LMT income statement
- LMT 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.