Leonardo DRS vs Northrop Grumman
DRS 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 DRS and NOC compare
Northrop Grumman is the larger company, worth 8.3 times as much as Leonardo DRS ($78.2B against $9.4B).
On earnings, Northrop Grumman is cheaper: it trades at 17.4× trailing earnings, against 25.9× for Leonardo DRS.
Leonardo DRS grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.9% versus 6.5% for Northrop Grumman).
Northrop Grumman keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.4% compared with 9.4% at Leonardo DRS.
Both pay dividends: Leonardo DRS yields 1.3% and Northrop Grumman 1.7%.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | DRS | NOC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $9.4B | $78.2B |
| Share price | $35.18 | $550.43 |
| Change, 1 year | −0.79% | −1.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 246% | 55.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.81 | 0.31 |
| Employees | 7,300 | 95K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 | 18 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 25.9× | 17.4× (better) |
| P/S | 2.4× | 1.8× (better) |
| P/B | 3.2× (better) | 4.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.7× | 14.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 27.3× | 20.4× (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.7% | 4.9% (better) |
| Fair value | $40.11 | $625.70 |
| Margin of safety | 12.3% (better) | 12.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.9% (better) | 6.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.6% (better) | 2.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 37.7% (better) | 12.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 38.8% (better) | 14.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 20.8% (better) | 8.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 25.3% | – |
| Operating margin | 10.8% (better) | 10.6% |
| Net margin | 9.4% | 10.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.9% (better) | 8.8% |
| Return on equity | 13.2% | 26.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 13.5% (better) | 13.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.06 (better) | 0.81 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.23 | 1.86 (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.88 (better) | 1.23 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.62 (better) | 3.08 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.3% | 1.7% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 30.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 9.7% |
| Buyback yield | 0.33% | 0.67% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.6% | 2.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 26.6% | 83.5% |
| Held by insiders | 0.31% | 0.22% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$8.6M (better) | −$26.4M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.5% | 1.5% |
Go deeper
- DRS stock overview
- DRS income statement
- DRS 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.