Consumer Electronics
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
BWSN vs AMSC vs CECO vs FWRD vs GTES
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Industrial - Machinery
Industrial - Pollution & Treatment Controls
Integrated Freight & Logistics
Industrial - Machinery
BWSN vs AMSC vs CECO vs FWRD vs GTES — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Consumer Electronics | Industrial - Machinery | Industrial - Pollution & Treatment Controls | Integrated Freight & Logistics | Industrial - Machinery |
| Market Cap | $2.40B | $2.56B | $2.92B | $547M | $6.61B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $635M | $279M | $812M | $2.46B | $3.45B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-36M | $130M | $17M | $-91M | $249M |
| Gross Margin | 25.5% | 30.6% | 34.3% | 23.1% | 40.1% |
| Operating Margin | 5.2% | 4.9% | 7.6% | 2.1% | 13.9% |
| Forward P/E | — | 15.4x | 48.8x | — | 16.2x |
| Total Debt | $369M | $3M | $25M | $2.16B | $2.51B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $90M | $79M | $33M | $106M | $812M |
BWSN vs AMSC vs CECO vs FWRD vs GTES — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Feb 21 | Dec 25 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Babcock & Wilcox En… (BWSN) | 100 | 100.7 | +0.7% |
| American Supercondu… (AMSC) | 100 | 130.7 | +30.7% |
| CECO Environmental … (CECO) | 100 | 636.0 | +536.0% |
| Forward Air Corpora… (FWRD) | 100 | 26.8 | -73.2% |
| Gates Industrial Co… (GTES) | 100 | 151.7 | +51.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BWSN vs AMSC vs CECO vs FWRD vs GTES
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BWSN ranks third and is worth considering specifically for dividends.
- 0.8% yield; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend
AMSC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 53.0%, EPS growth 143.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 27.1%
- 53.0% revenue growth vs BWSN's -18.1%
- 46.7% margin vs BWSN's -5.7%
- 18.1% ROA vs BWSN's -5.3%, ROIC -0.9% vs 9.1%
CECO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- 12.8% 10Y total return vs AMSC's 379.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.36, Low D/E 7.7%, current ratio 1.34x
- Beta 1.36 vs AMSC's 2.90
- +220.1% vs FWRD's +0.6%
FWRD is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 8 yrs, beta 2.28
GTES is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency and defensive.
- PEG 0.56 vs CECO's 1.14
- Beta 1.55, current ratio 3.37x
- Better valuation composite
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 53.0% revenue growth vs BWSN's -18.1% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 46.7% margin vs BWSN's -5.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.36 vs AMSC's 2.90 | |
| Dividends | 0.8% yield; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +220.1% vs FWRD's +0.6% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 18.1% ROA vs BWSN's -5.3%, ROIC -0.9% vs 9.1% |
BWSN vs AMSC vs CECO vs FWRD vs GTES — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
BWSN vs AMSC vs CECO vs FWRD vs GTES — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
GTES leads in 2 of 6 categories
AMSC leads 1 • BWSN leads 1 • FWRD leads 1 • CECO leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
GTES leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
GTES is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.4B annually — 12.3x AMSC's $279M. AMSC is the more profitable business, keeping 46.7% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to BWSN's -5.7%. On growth, BWSN holds the edge at +142.9% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $635M | $279M | $812M | $2.5B | $3.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $43M | $18M | $86M | $206M | $640M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$36M | $130M | $17M | -$91M | $249M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$86M | $16M | $4M | $38M | $421M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +25.5% | +30.6% | +34.3% | +23.1% | +40.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +5.2% | +4.9% | +7.6% | +2.1% | +13.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -5.7% | +46.7% | +2.1% | -3.7% | +7.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -13.5% | +5.7% | +0.5% | +1.6% | +12.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +142.9% | +21.4% | +21.5% | -5.1% | +0.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +106.4% | +39.9% | -91.8% | +35.1% | -100.0% |
Valuation Metrics
GTES leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 27.1x trailing earnings, GTES trades at a 92% valuation discount to AMSC's 332.6x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), GTES offers better value at 0.94x vs CECO's 1.39x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $2.4B | $2.6B | $2.9B | $547M | $6.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $2.9B | $2.5B | $2.9B | $2.6B | $8.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -30.71x | 332.63x | 59.40x | -4.98x | 27.06x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 15.37x | 48.83x | — | 16.15x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 1.39x | — | 0.94x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 69.63x | 454.16x | 38.01x | 13.75x | 11.20x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.34x | 11.47x | 3.77x | 0.22x | 1.92x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 10.18x | 9.22x | 3.32x | 1.83x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 98.78x | — | 35.82x | 16.34x |
Profitability & Efficiency
AMSC leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
AMSC delivers a 24.3% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $24 in annual profit, vs $-53 for FWRD. AMSC carries lower financial leverage with a 0.02x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FWRD's 13.36x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), GTES scores 8/9 vs BWSN's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | +24.3% | +5.4% | -52.6% | +6.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -5.3% | +18.1% | +1.9% | -3.3% | +3.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +9.1% | -0.9% | +10.0% | +1.2% | +7.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +7.5% | -0.6% | +9.4% | +1.5% | +8.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.02x | 0.08x | 13.36x | 0.68x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $279M | -$76M | -$8M | $2.1B | $1.7B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $90M | $79M | $33M | $106M | $812M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $369M | $3M | $25M | $2.2B | $2.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.97x | — | 2.74x | 0.32x | 2.59x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — AMSC and CECO each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CECO five years ago would be worth $110,271 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,978 for FWRD. Over the past 12 months, CECO leads with a +220.1% total return vs FWRD's +0.6%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors AMSC at 139.0% vs FWRD's -42.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | — | +68.5% | +36.1% | -31.0% | +17.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +85.0% | +156.9% | +220.1% | +0.6% | +29.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +26.2% | +1264.6% | +572.0% | -81.3% | +85.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +32.4% | +255.0% | +1002.7% | -80.2% | +47.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +37.3% | +379.0% | +1281.8% | -47.3% | +40.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +8.1% | +139.0% | +88.7% | -42.8% | +22.9% |
Risk & Volatility
BWSN leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
BWSN is the less volatile stock with a -0.06 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than AMSC's 2.90 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. BWSN currently trades 99.1% from its 52-week high vs FWRD's 53.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -0.06x | 2.90x | 1.36x | 2.28x | 1.55x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $25.40 | $70.49 | $90.25 | $32.47 | $28.47 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $7.84 | $20.43 | $24.71 | $14.81 | $19.97 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +99.1% | +75.5% | +90.2% | +53.4% | +91.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 67.9 | 74.0 | 75.7 | 42.4 | 59.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2K | 1.1M | 673K | 733K | 2.2M |
Analyst Outlook
FWRD leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: AMSC as "Buy", CECO as "Buy", FWRD as "Hold", GTES as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 113.5% upside for FWRD (target: $37) vs 5.9% for CECO (target: $86). BWSN is the only dividend payer here at 0.80% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $61.50 | $86.20 | $37.00 | $30.83 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 15 | 15 | 21 | 14 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.8% | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | — | 0 | 8 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.14 | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.0% | +0.0% | 0.0% | +0.2% | +1.8% |
GTES leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). AMSC leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 1 tied.
BWSN vs AMSC vs CECO vs FWRD vs GTES: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BWSN or AMSC or CECO or FWRD or GTES a better buy right now?
For growth investors, American Superconductor Corporation (AMSC) is the stronger pick with 53.
0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -18. 1% for Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, I (BWSN). Gates Industrial Corporation plc (GTES) offers the better valuation at 27. 1x trailing P/E (16. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate American Superconductor Corporation (AMSC) 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.
02Which has the better valuation — BWSN or AMSC or CECO or FWRD or GTES?
On trailing P/E, Gates Industrial Corporation plc (GTES) is the cheapest at 27.
1x versus American Superconductor Corporation at 332. 6x. On forward P/E, American Superconductor Corporation is actually cheaper at 15. 4x — 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: Gates Industrial Corporation plc wins at 0. 56x versus CECO Environmental Corp. 's 1. 14x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — BWSN or AMSC or CECO or FWRD or GTES?
Over the past 5 years, CECO Environmental Corp.
(CECO) delivered a total return of +1003%, compared to -80. 2% for Forward Air Corporation (FWRD). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CECO returned +1282% versus FWRD's -47. 3%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — BWSN or AMSC or CECO or FWRD or GTES?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, I (BWSN) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
06β versus American Superconductor Corporation's 2. 90β — meaning AMSC is approximately -5068% more volatile than BWSN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, American Superconductor Corporation (AMSC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 2% versus 13% for Forward Air Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — BWSN or AMSC or CECO or FWRD or GTES?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), American Superconductor Corporation (AMSC) is pulling ahead at 53.
0% versus -18. 1% for Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, I (BWSN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: CECO Environmental Corp. grew EPS 280. 6% year-over-year, compared to 29. 7% for Gates Industrial Corporation plc. Over a 3-year CAGR, AMSC leads at 27. 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.
06Which has better profit margins — BWSN or AMSC or CECO or FWRD or GTES?
Gates Industrial Corporation plc (GTES) is the more profitable company, earning 7.
3% net margin versus -6. 1% for Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, I — meaning it keeps 7. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: GTES leads at 15. 3% versus -0. 5% for AMSC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — GTES leads at 40. 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.
07Is BWSN or AMSC or CECO or FWRD or GTES more undervalued right now?
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, Gates Industrial Corporation plc (GTES) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 56x versus CECO Environmental Corp. 's 1. 14x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, American Superconductor Corporation (AMSC) trades at 15. 4x forward P/E versus 48. 8x for CECO Environmental Corp. — 33. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FWRD: 113. 5% to $37. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — BWSN or AMSC or CECO or FWRD or GTES?
In this comparison, BWSN (0.
8% yield) pays a dividend. AMSC, CECO, FWRD, GTES do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is BWSN or AMSC or CECO or FWRD or GTES better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, I (BWSN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
06), 0. 8% yield). Forward Air Corporation (FWRD) carries a higher beta of 2. 28 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (BWSN: +37. 3%, FWRD: -47. 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.
10What are the main differences between BWSN and AMSC and CECO and FWRD and GTES?
These companies operate in different sectors (BWSN (Technology) and AMSC (Industrials) and CECO (Industrials) and FWRD (Industrials) and GTES (Industrials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: BWSN is a small-cap quality compounder stock; AMSC is a small-cap high-growth stock; CECO is a small-cap high-growth stock; FWRD is a small-cap quality compounder stock; GTES is a small-cap quality compounder stock. BWSN pays a dividend while AMSC, CECO, FWRD, GTES do 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.