NSC vs CP

For growth investors, Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd.

(CP) is the stronger pick with 3. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 0. 5% for Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC). Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC) offers the better valuation at 24. 9x trailing P/E (26. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd. (CP) a "Buy" — based on 43 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, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC) is the cheapest at 24.

9x versus Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd. at 25. 9x. On forward P/E, Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd. is actually cheaper at 22. 8x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Norfolk Southern Corporation wins at 2. 57x versus Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd. 's 4. 89x.

Over the past 5 years, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC) delivered a total return of +19.

5%, compared to +14. 7% for Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd. (CP). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NSC returned +299. 2% versus CP's +227. 9%. 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), Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

63β versus Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd. 's 0. 70β — meaning CP is approximately 11% more volatile than NSC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd. (CP) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 50% versus 110% for Norfolk Southern Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd.

(CP) is pulling ahead at 3. 7% versus 0. 5% for Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd. grew EPS 13. 3% year-over-year, compared to 10. 2% for Norfolk Southern Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, CP leads at 19. 6% 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.

Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd.

(CP) is the more profitable company, earning 27. 5% net margin versus 23. 6% for Norfolk Southern Corporation — meaning it keeps 27. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CP leads at 37. 2% versus 32. 9% for NSC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CP leads at 52. 2%, 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, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 2. 57x versus Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd. 's 4. 89x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd. (CP) trades at 22. 8x forward P/E versus 26. 2x for Norfolk Southern Corporation — 3. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CP: 7. 0% to $92. 00.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC) offers the highest yield at 1. 7%, versus 0. 7% for Canadian Pacific Kansas City Ltd. (CP).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

63), 1. 7% yield, +299. 2% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (NSC: +299. 2%, CP: +227. 9%), 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.

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.