CLWT vs DHR vs TMO vs CODA

For growth investors, Coda Octopus Group, Inc.

(CODA) is the stronger pick with 30. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -14. 3% for Euro Tech Holdings Company Limited (CLWT). Euro Tech Holdings Company Limited (CLWT) offers the better valuation at 13. 2x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Danaher Corporation (DHR) a "Buy" — based on 42 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, Euro Tech Holdings Company Limited (CLWT) is the cheapest at 13.

2x versus Danaher Corporation at 34. 9x. On forward P/E, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. is actually cheaper at 19. 1x — 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: Coda Octopus Group, Inc. wins at 5. 24x versus Danaher Corporation's 34. 35x.

Over the past 5 years, Coda Octopus Group, Inc.

(CODA) delivered a total return of +49. 7%, compared to -28. 1% for Euro Tech Holdings Company Limited (CLWT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CODA returned +844. 4% versus CLWT's +164. 8%. 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), Euro Tech Holdings Company Limited (CLWT) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

37β versus Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. 's 1. 10β — meaning TMO is approximately 193% more volatile than CLWT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Euro Tech Holdings Company Limited (CLWT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 1% versus 76% for Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Coda Octopus Group, Inc.

(CODA) is pulling ahead at 30. 7% versus -14. 3% for Euro Tech Holdings Company Limited (CLWT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Coda Octopus Group, Inc. grew EPS 15. 6% year-over-year, compared to -60. 4% for Euro Tech Holdings Company Limited. Over a 3-year CAGR, CODA leads at 6. 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.

Coda Octopus Group, Inc.

(CODA) is the more profitable company, earning 15. 5% net margin versus 4. 8% for Euro Tech Holdings Company Limited — meaning it keeps 15. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: DHR leads at 20. 9% versus 2. 5% for CLWT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CODA leads at 66. 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.

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, Coda Octopus Group, Inc. (CODA) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 5. 24x versus Danaher Corporation's 34. 35x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. (TMO) trades at 19. 1x forward P/E versus 22. 5x for Coda Octopus Group, Inc. — 3. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for DHR: 40. 6% to $247. 00.

In this comparison, CLWT (6.

4% yield), DHR (0. 7% yield), TMO (0. 4% yield) pay a dividend. CODA does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Euro Tech Holdings Company Limited (CLWT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

37), 6. 4% yield, +164. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CLWT: +164. 8%, TMO: +229. 1%), 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.

These companies operate in different sectors (CLWT (Industrials) and DHR (Healthcare) and TMO (Healthcare) and CODA (Industrials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

In terms of investment character: CLWT is a small-cap deep-value stock; DHR is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; TMO is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; CODA is a small-cap high-growth stock. CLWT, DHR pay a dividend while TMO, CODA 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.