FLS vs GGG

For growth investors, Graco Inc.

(GGG) is the stronger pick with 5. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 3. 8% for Flowserve Corporation (FLS). Graco Inc. (GGG) offers the better valuation at 25. 5x trailing P/E (25. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Flowserve Corporation (FLS) a "Hold" — based on 31 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, Graco Inc.

(GGG) is the cheapest at 25. 5x versus Flowserve Corporation at 27. 1x. On forward P/E, Flowserve Corporation is actually cheaper at 17. 5x — 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: Flowserve Corporation wins at 0. 82x versus Graco Inc. 's 2. 54x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Flowserve Corporation (FLS) delivered a total return of +77.

4%, compared to +6. 4% for Graco Inc. (GGG). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GGG returned +228. 8% versus FLS's +75. 6%. 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), Graco Inc.

(GGG) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 80β versus Flowserve Corporation's 1. 69β — meaning FLS is approximately 110% more volatile than GGG relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Graco Inc. (GGG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 2% versus 85% for Flowserve Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

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

(GGG) is pulling ahead at 5. 8% versus 3. 8% for Flowserve Corporation (FLS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Flowserve Corporation grew EPS 23. 4% year-over-year, compared to 9. 2% for Graco Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, FLS leads at 9. 4% 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.

Graco Inc.

(GGG) is the more profitable company, earning 23. 3% net margin versus 7. 3% for Flowserve Corporation — meaning it keeps 23. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: GGG leads at 27. 3% versus 13. 0% for FLS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — GGG leads at 52. 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, Flowserve Corporation (FLS) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 82x versus Graco Inc. 's 2. 54x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Flowserve Corporation (FLS) trades at 17. 5x forward P/E versus 25. 2x for Graco Inc. — 7. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FLS: 25. 2% to $89. 57.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Graco Inc. (GGG) offers the highest yield at 1. 4%, versus 1. 2% for Flowserve Corporation (FLS).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Graco Inc.

(GGG) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 80), 1. 4% yield, +228. 8% 10Y return). Flowserve Corporation (FLS) carries a higher beta of 1. 69 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (GGG: +228. 8%, FLS: +75. 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.

Both stocks operate in the Industrials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

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.