CMT vs CMI

For growth investors, Cummins Inc.

(CMI) is the stronger pick with -1. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -9. 5% for Core Molding Technologies, Inc. (CMT). Core Molding Technologies, Inc. (CMT) offers the better valuation at 19. 1x trailing P/E (23. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Core Molding Technologies, Inc. (CMT) a "Buy" — based on 2 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, Core Molding Technologies, Inc.

(CMT) is the cheapest at 19. 1x versus Cummins Inc. at 32. 2x. On forward P/E, Cummins Inc. is actually cheaper at 22. 7x — 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: Cummins Inc. wins at 2. 01x versus Core Molding Technologies, Inc. 's 4. 08x.

Over the past 5 years, Cummins Inc.

(CMI) delivered a total return of +179. 2%, compared to +82. 5% for Core Molding Technologies, Inc. (CMT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CMI returned +530. 6% versus CMT's +88. 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), Core Molding Technologies, Inc.

(CMT) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 49β versus Cummins Inc. 's 1. 64β — meaning CMI is approximately 238% more volatile than CMT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Core Molding Technologies, Inc. (CMT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 21% versus 61% for Cummins Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

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

(CMI) is pulling ahead at -1. 3% versus -9. 5% for Core Molding Technologies, Inc. (CMT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Core Molding Technologies, Inc. grew EPS -14. 6% year-over-year, compared to -27. 7% for Cummins Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CMI leads at 6. 2% 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.

Cummins Inc.

(CMI) is the more profitable company, earning 8. 4% net margin versus 4. 1% for Core Molding Technologies, Inc. — meaning it keeps 8. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CMI leads at 11. 5% versus 5. 2% for CMT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CMI leads at 25. 3%, 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, Cummins Inc. (CMI) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 2. 01x versus Core Molding Technologies, Inc. 's 4. 08x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Cummins Inc. (CMI) trades at 22. 7x forward P/E versus 23. 0x for Core Molding Technologies, Inc. — 0. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CMI: 10. 4% to $727. 91.

In this comparison, CMI (1.

2% yield) pays a dividend. CMT does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Core Molding Technologies, Inc.

(CMT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 49)). Cummins Inc. (CMI) carries a higher beta of 1. 64 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (CMT: +88. 8%, CMI: +530. 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.

These companies operate in different sectors (CMT (Basic Materials) and CMI (Industrials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

CMI pays a dividend while CMT does 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.