ACM vs KBR

For growth investors, KBR, Inc.

(KBR) is the stronger pick with 0. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 0. 2% for Aecom (ACM). KBR, Inc. (KBR) offers the better valuation at 10. 3x trailing P/E (8. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Aecom (ACM) a "Buy" — based on 25 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, KBR, Inc.

(KBR) is the cheapest at 10. 3x versus Aecom at 19. 4x. On forward P/E, KBR, Inc. is actually cheaper at 8. 7x.

Over the past 5 years, Aecom (ACM) delivered a total return of +23.

5%, compared to -12. 6% for KBR, Inc. (KBR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ACM returned +172. 3% versus KBR's +163. 2%. 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), KBR, Inc.

(KBR) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 83β versus Aecom's 0. 92β — meaning ACM is approximately 11% more volatile than KBR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Aecom (ACM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 125% versus 2% for KBR, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), KBR, Inc.

(KBR) is pulling ahead at 0. 6% versus 0. 2% for Aecom (ACM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Aecom grew EPS 42. 7% year-over-year, compared to 14. 6% for KBR, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ACM leads at 7. 1% 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.

KBR, Inc.

(KBR) is the more profitable company, earning 5. 3% net margin versus 3. 5% for Aecom — meaning it keeps 5. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: KBR leads at 7. 3% versus 6. 4% for ACM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — KBR leads at 14. 8%, 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, KBR, Inc.

(KBR) trades at 8. 7x forward P/E versus 13. 8x for Aecom — 5. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for KBR: 55. 6% to $51. 67.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

KBR, Inc. (KBR) offers the highest yield at 2. 0%, versus 1. 2% for Aecom (ACM).

For long-horizon retirement investors, KBR, Inc.

(KBR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 83), 2. 0% yield, +163. 2% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (KBR: +163. 2%, ACM: +172. 3%), 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.

In terms of investment character: ACM is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; KBR is a small-cap deep-value 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.