Lockheed Martin vs Northrop Grumman
LMT and NOC side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LMT and NOC compare
Lockheed Martin is the larger company, worth 1.8 times as much as Northrop Grumman ($138B against $78.2B).
On earnings, Northrop Grumman is cheaper: it trades at 17.4× trailing earnings, against 21.2× for Lockheed Martin.
Lockheed Martin grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (7.9% 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 8.2% at Lockheed Martin.
Both pay dividends: Lockheed Martin yields 2.3% and Northrop Grumman 1.7%.
Northrop Grumman 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 | LMT | NOC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $138B | $78.2B |
| Share price | $596.04 | $550.43 |
| Change, 1 year | 30.4% | −1.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 74.6% | 55.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.35 | 0.31 |
| Employees | 110K | 95K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.2× | 17.4× (better) |
| P/S | 1.7× (better) | 1.8× |
| P/B | 13.7× | 4.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.8× (better) | 14.6× |
| P/FCF | 16.4× (better) | 20.4× |
| FCF yield | 6.1% (better) | 4.9% |
| Fair value | $546.40 | $625.70 |
| Margin of safety | −9.1% | 12.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 7.9% (better) | 6.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.8% (better) | 2.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 55.1% (better) | 12.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 57.2% (better) | 14.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −2.4% | 8.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 11.7% | – |
| Operating margin | 11.8% (better) | 10.6% |
| Net margin | 8.2% | 10.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 10.6% (better) | 8.8% |
| Return on equity | 80.2% (better) | 26.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 32.0% (better) | 13.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.04 | 0.81 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.32 (better) | 1.86 |
| Interest coverage | 8.6× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.26 (better) | 1.23 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.71 (better) | 3.08 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.3% (better) | 1.7% |
| Payout ratio | 49.2% | 30.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | 16 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 6.4% | 9.7% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.54% | 0.67% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.9% (better) | 2.4% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 75.6% | 83.5% |
| Held by insiders | 0.07% | 0.22% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$124K (better) | −$26.4M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.3% | 1.5% |
Go deeper
- LMT stock overview
- LMT income statement
- LMT 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.