LECO vs IR

For growth investors, Ingersoll Rand Inc.

(IR) is the stronger pick with 5. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 5. 5% for Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. (LECO). Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. (LECO) offers the better valuation at 29. 5x trailing P/E (25. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Ingersoll Rand Inc. (IR) a "Buy" — based on 15 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, Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.

(LECO) is the cheapest at 29. 5x versus Ingersoll Rand Inc. at 54. 2x. On forward P/E, Ingersoll Rand Inc. is actually cheaper at 22. 4x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.

(LECO) delivered a total return of +115. 6%, compared to +59. 5% for Ingersoll Rand Inc. (IR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: LECO returned +390. 7% versus IR's +305. 0%. 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), Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.

(LECO) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 13β versus Ingersoll Rand Inc. 's 1. 48β — meaning IR is approximately 32% more volatile than LECO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Ingersoll Rand Inc. (IR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 47% versus 88% for Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Ingersoll Rand Inc.

(IR) is pulling ahead at 5. 7% versus 5. 5% for Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. (LECO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. grew EPS 14. 4% year-over-year, compared to -29. 6% for Ingersoll Rand Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, IR leads at 8. 9% 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.

Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.

(LECO) is the more profitable company, earning 12. 3% net margin versus 7. 6% for Ingersoll Rand Inc. — meaning it keeps 12. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: IR leads at 18. 5% versus 16. 9% for LECO. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — IR leads at 38. 5%, 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.

On forward earnings alone, Ingersoll Rand Inc.

(IR) trades at 22. 4x forward P/E versus 25. 4x for Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. — 3. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for IR: 26. 5% to $99. 50.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. (LECO) offers the highest yield at 1. 1%, versus 0. 1% for Ingersoll Rand Inc. (IR).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.

(LECO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 13), 1. 1% yield, +390. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (LECO: +390. 7%, IR: +305. 0%), 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.

Both stocks operate in the Industrials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

LECO pays a dividend while IR does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.