RRX vs PH

For growth investors, Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH) is the stronger pick with -0.

4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 6% for Regal Rexnord Corporation (RRX). Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH) offers the better valuation at 33. 3x trailing P/E (29. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Regal Rexnord Corporation (RRX) a "Buy" — based on 22 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, Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH) is the cheapest at 33.

3x versus Regal Rexnord Corporation at 54. 8x. On forward P/E, Regal Rexnord Corporation is actually cheaper at 21. 7x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH) delivered a total return of +194.

8%, compared to +62. 8% for Regal Rexnord Corporation (RRX). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PH returned +741. 1% versus RRX's +290. 6%. 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), Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH) is the lower-risk stock at 1.

00β versus Regal Rexnord Corporation's 1. 91β — meaning RRX is approximately 92% more volatile than PH relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 70% versus 74% for Regal Rexnord Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH) is pulling ahead at -0.

4% versus -1. 6% for Regal Rexnord Corporation (RRX). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Regal Rexnord Corporation grew EPS 43. 5% year-over-year, compared to 24. 2% for Parker-Hannifin Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, PH leads at 7. 8% 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.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH) is the more profitable company, earning 17.

8% net margin versus 4. 7% for Regal Rexnord Corporation — meaning it keeps 17. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: PH leads at 20. 5% versus 11. 5% for RRX. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RRX leads at 37. 4%, 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, Regal Rexnord Corporation (RRX) trades at 21.

7x forward P/E versus 29. 1x for Parker-Hannifin Corporation — 7. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for PH: 15. 4% to $1042. 08.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH) offers the highest yield at 0. 7%, versus 0. 6% for Regal Rexnord Corporation (RRX).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1.

00), 0. 7% yield, +741. 1% 10Y return). Regal Rexnord Corporation (RRX) carries a higher beta of 1. 91 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (PH: +741. 1%, RRX: +290. 6%), 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.