GD vs LHX vs RTX vs LMT vs NOC

For growth investors, General Dynamics Corporation (GD) is the stronger pick with 10.

1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 2. 2% for Northrop Grumman Corporation (NOC). Northrop Grumman Corporation (NOC) offers the better valuation at 19. 0x trailing P/E (19. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate General Dynamics Corporation (GD) a "Buy" — based on 34 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, Northrop Grumman Corporation (NOC) is the cheapest at 19.

0x versus RTX Corporation at 35. 6x. On forward P/E, Lockheed Martin Corporation is actually cheaper at 17. 1x — 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 General Dynamics Corporation's 2. 99x.

Over the past 5 years, RTX Corporation (RTX) delivered a total return of +120.

1%, compared to +46. 9% for Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: LHX returned +346. 1% versus LMT's +156. 2%. 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), Northrop Grumman Corporation (NOC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

03β versus General Dynamics Corporation's 0. 56β — meaning GD is approximately 1862% more volatile than NOC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, General Dynamics Corporation (GD) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 38% versus 3% for Lockheed Martin Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), General Dynamics Corporation (GD) is pulling ahead at 10.

1% versus 2. 2% for Northrop Grumman Corporation (NOC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: RTX Corporation grew EPS 39. 7% year-over-year, compared to -3. 7% for Lockheed Martin Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, GD leads at 10. 1% 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.

Northrop Grumman Corporation (NOC) is the more profitable company, earning 10.

0% net margin versus 6. 7% for Lockheed Martin Corporation — meaning it keeps 10. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: LMT leads at 10. 3% versus 10. 0% for RTX. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — LHX leads at 25. 7%, 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, Northrop Grumman Corporation (NOC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 2. 23x versus General Dynamics Corporation's 2. 99x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMT) trades at 17. 1x forward P/E versus 26. 0x for L3Harris Technologies, Inc. — 8. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NOC: 32. 5% to $731. 46.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMT) offers the highest yield at 2. 6%, versus 1. 5% for RTX Corporation (RTX).

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). Both have compounded well over 10 years (NOC: +186. 0%, GD: +175. 5%), 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.