General Dynamics vs Lockheed Martin
GD and LMT side by side, both in transportation equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How GD and LMT compare
Lockheed Martin is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as General Dynamics ($140B against $98.1B).
On earnings, General Dynamics is cheaper: it trades at 21.4× trailing earnings, against 21.5× for Lockheed Martin.
General Dynamics grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.7% versus 7.9% for Lockheed Martin).
General Dynamics keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.2% compared with 8.2% at Lockheed Martin.
Both pay dividends: General Dynamics yields 1.7% and Lockheed Martin 2.3%.
General Dynamics scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 16 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 | GD | LMT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $98.1B | $140B |
| Share price | $363.07 | $604.09 |
| Change, 1 year | 3.0% | 32.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 84.9% | 76.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.57 | 0.35 |
| Employees | 40K | 110K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 16 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.4× (better) | 21.5× |
| P/S | 1.7× (better) | 1.8× |
| P/B | 3.6× (better) | 13.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.8× | 14.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | 17.0× | 16.7× (better) |
| PEG | 2.60 | – |
| FCF yield | 5.9% | 6.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $318.68 | $548.95 |
| Margin of safety | −13.9% | −10.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.7% (better) | 7.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.7% (better) | 2.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 10.5% | 55.1% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 10.2% | 57.2% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 7.0% (better) | −2.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 11.7% |
| Operating margin | 10.4% | 11.8% (better) |
| Net margin | 8.2% (better) | 8.2% |
| FCF margin | 10.2% | 10.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | 18.0% | 80.2% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 16.1% | 32.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.26 (better) | 2.04 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.39 (better) | 1.32 |
| Interest coverage | – | 8.6× |
| Current ratio | 1.43 (better) | 1.26 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.29 (better) | 3.73 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.7% | 2.3% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 35.8% | 49.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 16 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 6.4% |
| Buyback yield | 0.65% (better) | 0.54% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.4% | 2.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 86.7% | 75.6% |
| Held by insiders | 9.7% | 0.07% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$116M | −$124K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 0.94% | 1.3% |
Go deeper
- GD stock overview
- GD income statement
- GD valuation and score
- LMT stock overview
- LMT income statement
- LMT valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.