CMT vs UFPT

For growth investors, UFP Technologies, Inc.

(UFPT) is the stronger pick with 19. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -9. 5% for Core Molding Technologies, Inc. (CMT). Core Molding Technologies, Inc. (CMT) offers the better valuation at 19. 1x trailing P/E (23. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Core Molding Technologies, Inc. (CMT) a "Buy" — based on 2 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On trailing P/E, Core Molding Technologies, Inc.

(CMT) is the cheapest at 19. 1x versus UFP Technologies, Inc. at 26. 8x. On forward P/E, Core Molding Technologies, Inc. is actually cheaper at 23. 0x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: UFP Technologies, Inc. wins at 0. 66x versus Core Molding Technologies, Inc. 's 4. 08x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, UFP Technologies, Inc.

(UFPT) delivered a total return of +307. 2%, compared to +82. 5% for Core Molding Technologies, Inc. (CMT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: UFPT returned +1018% versus CMT's +88. 8%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Core Molding Technologies, Inc.

(CMT) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 49β versus UFP Technologies, Inc. 's 1. 11β — meaning UFPT is approximately 128% more volatile than CMT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Core Molding Technologies, Inc. (CMT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 21% versus 36% for UFP Technologies, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), UFP Technologies, Inc.

(UFPT) is pulling ahead at 19. 5% versus -9. 5% for Core Molding Technologies, Inc. (CMT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: UFP Technologies, Inc. grew EPS 15. 7% year-over-year, compared to -14. 6% for Core Molding Technologies, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, UFPT leads at 19. 4% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

UFP Technologies, Inc.

(UFPT) is the more profitable company, earning 11. 3% net margin versus 4. 1% for Core Molding Technologies, Inc. — meaning it keeps 11. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: UFPT leads at 15. 3% versus 5. 2% for CMT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — UFPT leads at 28. 3%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.

By this metric, UFP Technologies, Inc. (UFPT) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 66x versus Core Molding Technologies, Inc. 's 4. 08x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Core Molding Technologies, Inc. (CMT) trades at 23. 0x forward P/E versus 24. 7x for UFP Technologies, Inc. — 1. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for UFPT: 26. 8% to $298. 00.

None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.

All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, UFP Technologies, Inc.

(UFPT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 11), +1018% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (UFPT: +1018%, CMT: +88. 8%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

These companies operate in different sectors (CMT (Basic Materials) and UFPT (Healthcare)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

In terms of investment character: CMT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; UFPT is a small-cap high-growth stock. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.