Moog vs Woodward
MOG.A and WWD side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MOG.A and WWD compare
Woodward is the larger company, worth 1.6 times as much as Moog ($18.0B against $11.5B).
On earnings, Moog is cheaper: it trades at 30.9× trailing earnings, against 33.9× for Woodward.
Woodward grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (22.3% versus 15.7% for Moog).
Woodward keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.2% compared with 8.7% at Moog.
Both pay dividends: Moog yields 0.33% and Woodward 0.41%.
Moog scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 15 for Woodward), 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 | MOG.A | WWD |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $11.5B | $18.0B |
| Share price | $362.81 | $304.65 |
| Change, 1 year | 72.3% | 13.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 334% | 153% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.02 | 1.07 |
| Employees | 13K | 7,100 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 15 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 30.9× (better) | 33.9× |
| P/S | 2.7× (better) | 4.3× |
| P/B | 5.2× (better) | 7.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.8× (better) | 22.0× |
| P/FCF | 32.8× (better) | 47.8× |
| PEG | 2.07 | 0.88 (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.0% (better) | 2.1% |
| Fair value | $310.23 | $292.93 |
| Margin of safety | −16.9% | −4.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 15.7% | 22.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.0% | 7.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 76.9% (better) | 42.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 77.4% (better) | 42.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 92.1% (better) | 14.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 28.2% | 29.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | 13.3% | – |
| Net margin | 8.7% | 13.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.1% | 9.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 18.2% | 22.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 16.5% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.41 (better) | 0.54 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.22 | 1.01 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 8.6× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.09 (better) | 1.65 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.26 | 6.05 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.33% | 0.41% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 9.9% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 8.9% | 12.5% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.68% | 3.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.0% | 3.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 89.3% | 91.3% |
| Held by insiders | 5.4% | 0.44% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.7M (better) | −$32.2M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 1.8% |
Go deeper
- MOG.A stock overview
- MOG.A income statement
- MOG.A valuation and score
- WWD stock overview
- WWD income statement
- WWD valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.