Aerospace & Defense
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
CVU vs KTOS vs AVAV vs DRS vs NOC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Aerospace & Defense
Aerospace & Defense
Aerospace & Defense
Aerospace & Defense
CVU vs KTOS vs AVAV vs DRS vs NOC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Aerospace & Defense | Aerospace & Defense | Aerospace & Defense | Aerospace & Defense | Aerospace & Defense |
| Market Cap | $49M | $10.68B | $8.40B | $11.05B | $78.41B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $72M | $1.42B | $1.61B | $3.69B | $42.37B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-564K | $29M | $-224M | $290M | $4.58B |
| Gross Margin | 15.3% | 18.3% | 21.8% | 24.2% | 20.5% |
| Operating Margin | 0.9% | 1.8% | -8.3% | 9.9% | 11.1% |
| Forward P/E | 14.7x | 73.5x | 58.4x | 33.0x | 19.8x |
| Total Debt | $21M | $180M | $64M | $470M | $19.74B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $5M | $561M | $41M | $647M | $4.40B |
CVU vs KTOS vs AVAV vs DRS vs NOC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| CPI Aerostructures,… (CVU) | 100 | 139.1 | +39.1% |
| Kratos Defense & Se… (KTOS) | 100 | 307.3 | +207.3% |
| AeroVironment, Inc. (AVAV) | 100 | 237.4 | +137.4% |
| Leonardo DRS, Inc. (DRS) | 100 | 828.8 | +728.8% |
| Northrop Grumman Co… (NOC) | 100 | 164.7 | +64.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CVU vs KTOS vs AVAV vs DRS vs NOC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CVU ranks third and is worth considering specifically for value.
- Lower P/E (14.7x vs 33.0x)
KTOS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 18.5%, EPS growth 18.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 14.5%
- 18.5% revenue growth vs CVU's -6.2%
- +58.1% vs DRS's +0.6%
AVAV is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.57, Low D/E 7.3%, current ratio 3.52x
DRS is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 54.1% 10Y total return vs KTOS's 12.3%
NOC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and valuation efficiency.
- Dividend streak 22 yrs, beta 0.03, yield 1.6%
- PEG 2.23 vs DRS's 2.63
- Beta 0.03, yield 1.6%, current ratio 1.09x
- 10.8% margin vs AVAV's -13.9%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 18.5% revenue growth vs CVU's -6.2% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (14.7x vs 33.0x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 10.8% margin vs AVAV's -13.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.03 vs KTOS's 1.84 | |
| Dividends | 1.6% yield, 22-year raise streak, vs DRS's 0.9%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +58.1% vs DRS's +0.6% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 9.1% ROA vs AVAV's -5.0%, ROIC 10.2% vs 3.6% |
CVU vs KTOS vs AVAV vs DRS vs NOC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
CVU vs KTOS vs AVAV vs DRS vs NOC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CVU leads in 2 of 6 categories
NOC leads 1 • KTOS leads 0 • AVAV leads 0 • DRS leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — DRS and NOC each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NOC is the larger business by revenue, generating $42.4B annually — 591.6x CVU's $72M. NOC is the more profitable business, keeping 10.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to AVAV's -13.9%. On growth, AVAV holds the edge at +143.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $72M | $1.4B | $1.6B | $3.7B | $42.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $2M | $72M | $82M | $436M | $6.2B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$563,718 | $29M | -$224M | $290M | $4.6B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $1M | -$133M | -$183M | $397M | $3.3B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +15.3% | +18.3% | +21.8% | +24.2% | +20.5% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +0.9% | +1.8% | -8.3% | +9.9% | +11.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -0.8% | +2.1% | -13.9% | +7.8% | +10.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +1.6% | -9.4% | -11.3% | +10.7% | +7.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -0.8% | +22.6% | +143.4% | +5.9% | +4.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +52.5% | +133.3% | -51.5% | +21.1% | +84.9% |
Valuation Metrics
CVU leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 14.7x trailing earnings, CVU trades at a 97% valuation discount to KTOS's 438.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), NOC offers better value at 2.15x vs DRS's 3.20x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $49M | $10.7B | $8.4B | $11.1B | $78.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $65M | $10.3B | $8.4B | $10.9B | $93.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 14.65x | 438.46x | 108.50x | 40.23x | 18.98x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 73.49x | 58.41x | 33.01x | 19.76x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | 3.20x | 2.15x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 9.01x | 118.42x | 102.96x | 24.67x | 16.30x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.61x | 7.93x | 10.23x | 3.03x | 1.87x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.87x | 4.94x | 5.34x | 4.08x | 4.76x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 15.69x | — | — | 48.70x | 23.71x |
Profitability & Efficiency
CVU leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
NOC delivers a 28.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $28 in annual profit, vs $-6 for AVAV. AVAV carries lower financial leverage with a 0.07x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to NOC's 1.18x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CVU scores 7/9 vs AVAV's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -2.3% | +1.3% | -6.4% | +10.8% | +28.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -0.8% | +1.0% | -5.0% | +6.8% | +9.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +12.1% | +1.4% | +3.6% | +10.5% | +10.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +16.0% | +1.5% | +4.5% | +10.8% | +11.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.79x | 0.09x | 0.07x | 0.17x | 1.18x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $15M | -$381M | $23M | -$177M | $15.3B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $5M | $561M | $41M | $647M | $4.4B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $21M | $180M | $64M | $470M | $19.7B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.40x | 6.16x | -5.99x | 40.86x | 8.92x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — KTOS and DRS each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in DRS five years ago would be worth $33,193 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $8,923 for CVU. Over the past 12 months, KTOS leads with a +58.1% total return vs DRS's +0.6%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors KTOS at 62.8% vs CVU's 5.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -5.0% | -28.1% | -34.4% | +19.4% | -5.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +14.1% | +58.1% | +5.1% | +0.6% | +15.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +16.2% | +331.5% | +63.1% | +165.6% | +30.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -10.8% | +110.3% | +53.7% | +231.9% | +59.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -42.7% | +1231.8% | +498.3% | +5411.8% | +186.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +5.1% | +62.8% | +17.7% | +38.5% | +9.3% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — DRS and NOC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
NOC is the less volatile stock with a 0.03 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than KTOS's 1.84 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. DRS currently trades 84.0% from its 52-week high vs AVAV's 40.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.88x | 1.84x | 1.57x | 0.95x | 0.03x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $5.40 | $134.00 | $417.86 | $49.31 | $774.00 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $2.02 | $32.85 | $155.69 | $32.43 | $453.01 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +70.6% | +42.5% | +40.2% | +84.0% | +71.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 50.3 | 38.8 | 39.8 | 46.5 | 19.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 110K | 4.3M | 1.7M | 1.1M | 760K |
Analyst Outlook
NOC leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: KTOS as "Buy", AVAV as "Buy", DRS as "Buy", NOC as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 104.3% upside for AVAV (target: $344) vs 27.9% for DRS (target: $53). For income investors, NOC offers the higher dividend yield at 1.63% vs DRS's 0.86%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $110.58 | $343.60 | $53.00 | $731.46 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 22 | 28 | 9 | 35 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | +0.9% | +1.6% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | 0 | 22 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | $0.36 | $8.99 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.3% | +2.1% |
CVU leads in 2 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Profitability & Efficiency). NOC leads in 1 (Analyst Outlook). 3 tied.
CVU vs KTOS vs AVAV vs DRS vs NOC: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CVU or KTOS or AVAV or DRS or NOC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.
(KTOS) is the stronger pick with 18. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -6. 2% for CPI Aerostructures, Inc. (CVU). CPI Aerostructures, Inc. (CVU) offers the better valuation at 14. 7x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. (KTOS) a "Buy" — based on 22 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 — CVU or KTOS or AVAV or DRS or NOC?
On trailing P/E, CPI Aerostructures, Inc.
(CVU) is the cheapest at 14. 7x versus Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. at 438. 5x. On forward P/E, Northrop Grumman Corporation is actually cheaper at 19. 8x — 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: Northrop Grumman Corporation wins at 2. 23x versus Leonardo DRS, Inc. 's 2. 63x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — CVU or KTOS or AVAV or DRS or NOC?
Over the past 5 years, Leonardo DRS, Inc.
(DRS) delivered a total return of +231. 9%, compared to -10. 8% for CPI Aerostructures, Inc. (CVU). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: DRS returned +54. 1% versus CVU's -42. 7%. 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 — CVU or KTOS or AVAV or DRS or NOC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Northrop Grumman Corporation (NOC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
03β versus Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. 's 1. 84β — meaning KTOS is approximately 6331% more volatile than NOC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, AeroVironment, Inc. (AVAV) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 7% versus 118% for Northrop Grumman Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — CVU or KTOS or AVAV or DRS or NOC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.
(KTOS) is pulling ahead at 18. 5% versus -6. 2% for CPI Aerostructures, Inc. (CVU). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Leonardo DRS, Inc. grew EPS 28. 7% year-over-year, compared to -81. 2% for CPI Aerostructures, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, AVAV leads at 22. 6% 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 — CVU or KTOS or AVAV or DRS or NOC?
Northrop Grumman Corporation (NOC) is the more profitable company, earning 10.
0% net margin versus 1. 6% for Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. — meaning it keeps 10. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NOC leads at 10. 2% versus 2. 1% for KTOS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AVAV leads at 39. 4%, 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 CVU or KTOS or AVAV or DRS or NOC 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, Northrop Grumman Corporation (NOC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 2. 23x versus Leonardo DRS, Inc. 's 2. 63x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Northrop Grumman Corporation (NOC) trades at 19. 8x forward P/E versus 73. 5x for Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. — 53. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for AVAV: 104. 3% to $343. 60.
08Which pays a better dividend — CVU or KTOS or AVAV or DRS or NOC?
In this comparison, NOC (1.
6% yield), DRS (0. 9% yield) pay a dividend. CVU, KTOS, AVAV do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is CVU or KTOS or AVAV or DRS or NOC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Northrop Grumman Corporation (NOC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
03), 1. 6% yield, +186. 0% 10Y return). AeroVironment, Inc. (AVAV) carries a higher beta of 1. 57 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (NOC: +186. 0%, AVAV: +498. 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 CVU and KTOS and AVAV and DRS and NOC?
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: CVU is a small-cap deep-value stock; KTOS is a mid-cap high-growth stock; AVAV is a small-cap quality compounder stock; DRS is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; NOC is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. DRS, NOC pay a dividend while CVU, KTOS, AVAV 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.