BWX Technologies vs Curtiss Wright
BWXT and CW side by side, both in industrial and commercial machinery and computer equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BWXT and CW compare
Curtiss Wright is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as BWX Technologies ($17.4B against $11.3B).
On earnings, BWX Technologies is cheaper: it trades at 30.1× trailing earnings, against 31.5× for Curtiss Wright.
BWX Technologies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.7% versus 10.7% for Curtiss Wright).
Curtiss Wright keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.9% compared with 10.4% at BWX Technologies.
Both pay dividends: BWX Technologies yields 0.86% and Curtiss Wright 0.21%.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | BWXT | CW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $11.3B | $17.4B |
| Share price | $122.97 | $472.06 |
| Change, 1 year | −37.5% | −18.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 139% | 257% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.83 | 0.84 |
| Employees | 1,300 | 9,100 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 | 19 |
| Valuation score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 5 | 5 |
| Performance score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 30.1× (better) | 31.5× |
| P/S | 3.1× (better) | 4.7× |
| P/B | 7.9× | 6.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 22.4× | 22.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | 30.3× | 29.6× (better) |
| PEG | 2.68 | 1.65 (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.3% | 3.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $100.13 | $337.10 |
| Margin of safety | −22.8% (better) | −40.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 17.7% (better) | 10.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.5% (better) | 7.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 22.1% (better) | 19.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 22.5% (better) | 22.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 4.2% | 21.8% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 22.6% | 38.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | 12.4% | 18.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 10.4% | 14.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 10.3% | 15.8% (better) |
| Return on equity | 28.2% (better) | 21.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 13.3% | 17.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.43 | 0.37 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.56 | 0.82 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 17.4× (better) | 16.8× |
| Current ratio | 1.88 (better) | 1.42 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.11 | 6.22 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.86% (better) | 0.21% |
| Payout ratio | 26.1% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 9 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 4.8% | 6.5% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.00% | 3.0% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.86% | 3.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.4% | 85.8% |
| Held by insiders | 0.38% | 0.39% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$7.0M (better) | −$22.7M |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.0% | 2.5% |
Go deeper
- BWXT stock overview
- BWXT income statement
- BWXT valuation and score
- CW stock overview
- CW income statement
- CW valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.