FLS vs IR

For growth investors, Ingersoll Rand Inc.

(IR) is the stronger pick with 5. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 3. 8% for Flowserve Corporation (FLS). Flowserve Corporation (FLS) offers the better valuation at 27. 8x trailing P/E (17. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Ingersoll Rand Inc. (IR) a "Buy" — based on 15 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, Flowserve Corporation (FLS) is the cheapest at 27.

8x versus Ingersoll Rand Inc. at 54. 2x. On forward P/E, Flowserve Corporation is actually cheaper at 17. 9x.

Over the past 5 years, Flowserve Corporation (FLS) delivered a total return of +83.

2%, compared to +59. 5% for Ingersoll Rand Inc. (IR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IR returned +305. 0% versus FLS's +75. 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), Ingersoll Rand Inc.

(IR) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 48β versus Flowserve Corporation's 1. 69β — meaning FLS is approximately 14% more volatile than IR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Ingersoll Rand Inc. (IR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 47% versus 85% for Flowserve Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Ingersoll Rand Inc.

(IR) is pulling ahead at 5. 7% 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 -29. 6% for Ingersoll Rand 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.

Ingersoll Rand Inc.

(IR) is the more profitable company, earning 7. 6% net margin versus 7. 3% for Flowserve Corporation — meaning it keeps 7. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: IR leads at 18. 5% versus 13. 0% for FLS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — IR leads at 38. 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.

On forward earnings alone, Flowserve Corporation (FLS) trades at 17.

9x forward P/E versus 22. 4x for Ingersoll Rand Inc. — 4. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for IR: 26. 5% to $99. 50.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Flowserve Corporation (FLS) offers the highest yield at 1. 1%, versus 0. 1% for Ingersoll Rand Inc. (IR).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Flowserve Corporation (FLS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (1.

1% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (FLS: +75. 8%, IR: +305. 0%), 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.

FLS pays a dividend while IR 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.