Northrop Grumman vs Teledyne Technologies
NOC and TDY 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 NOC and TDY compare
Northrop Grumman is the larger company, worth 2.6 times as much as Teledyne Technologies ($79.2B against $30.5B).
On earnings, Northrop Grumman is cheaper: it trades at 17.7× trailing earnings, against 31.8× for Teledyne Technologies.
Teledyne Technologies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (7.9% versus 5.9% for Northrop Grumman).
Teledyne Technologies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.3% compared with 10.5% at Northrop Grumman.
Northrop Grumman pays a dividend yielding 1.7%; Teledyne Technologies does not pay one.
Northrop Grumman scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 12 for Teledyne Technologies), 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 | NOC | TDY |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $79.2B | $30.5B |
| Share price | $557.54 | $658.23 |
| Change, 1 year | −4.7% | 27.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 53.0% | 47.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.29 | 0.87 |
| Employees | 95K | 16K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.7× (better) | 31.8× |
| P/S | 1.8× (better) | 4.8× |
| P/B | 4.4× | 2.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.0× (better) | 20.4× |
| P/FCF | 21.7× (better) | 26.7× |
| PEG | – | 7.03 |
| FCF yield | 4.6% (better) | 3.7% |
| Fair value | $647.15 | $557.98 |
| Margin of safety | 13.8% (better) | −18.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.9% | 7.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.7% | 14.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 14.0% (better) | 13.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 16.0% (better) | 13.9% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 8.9% | 12.2% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 43.3% |
| Operating margin | 10.7% | 19.4% (better) |
| Net margin | 10.5% | 15.3% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.5% | 17.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 27.0% (better) | 9.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 13.1% (better) | 8.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.85 | 0.19 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.10 | 1.07 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 24.5× |
| Current ratio | 1.17 | 2.18 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.13 | 5.72 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.7% | – |
| Payout ratio | 29.9% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 9.7% | – |
| Buyback yield | 1.0% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.7% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 83.5% | 97.3% |
| Held by insiders | 0.22% | 1.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$26.4M | −$11.9M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.6% | 2.4% |
Go deeper
- NOC stock overview
- NOC income statement
- NOC valuation and score
- TDY stock overview
- TDY income statement
- TDY valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.