CTM vs LDOS

For growth investors, Castellum, Inc.

(CTM) is the stronger pick with 18. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 3. 1% for Leidos Holdings, Inc. (LDOS). Leidos Holdings, Inc. (LDOS) offers the better valuation at 11. 8x trailing P/E (11. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Leidos Holdings, Inc. (LDOS) a "Buy" — based on 27 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, Leidos Holdings, Inc.

(LDOS) is the cheapest at 11. 8x versus Castellum, Inc. at 24. 9x.

Over the past 5 years, Leidos Holdings, Inc.

(LDOS) delivered a total return of +33. 4%, compared to -45. 3% for Castellum, Inc. (CTM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: LDOS returned +221. 6% versus CTM's -37. 3%. 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), Leidos Holdings, Inc.

(LDOS) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 39β versus Castellum, Inc. 's 2. 26β — meaning CTM is approximately 476% more volatile than LDOS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Castellum, Inc. (CTM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 3% versus 119% for Leidos Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

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

(CTM) is pulling ahead at 18. 1% versus 3. 1% for Leidos Holdings, Inc. (LDOS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Castellum, Inc. grew EPS 114. 7% year-over-year, compared to 20. 7% for Leidos Holdings, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CTM 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.

Leidos Holdings, Inc.

(LDOS) is the more profitable company, earning 8. 5% net margin versus 4. 7% for Castellum, Inc. — meaning it keeps 8. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: LDOS leads at 12. 3% versus -5. 3% for CTM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CTM leads at 36. 6%, 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.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Leidos Holdings, Inc. (LDOS) offers the highest yield at 1. 2%, versus 0. 2% for Castellum, Inc. (CTM).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Leidos Holdings, Inc.

(LDOS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 39), 1. 2% yield, +221. 6% 10Y return). Castellum, Inc. (CTM) carries a higher beta of 2. 26 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (LDOS: +221. 6%, CTM: -37. 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 Technology sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

In terms of investment character: CTM is a small-cap high-growth stock; LDOS is a mid-cap deep-value stock. LDOS pays a dividend while CTM 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.