Industrial - Machinery
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
GHM vs GTLS vs FWRD vs ESAB vs LIN
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Industrial - Machinery
Integrated Freight & Logistics
Manufacturing - Metal Fabrication
Chemicals - Specialty
GHM vs GTLS vs FWRD vs ESAB vs LIN — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Industrial - Machinery | Industrial - Machinery | Integrated Freight & Logistics | Manufacturing - Metal Fabrication | Chemicals - Specialty |
| Market Cap | $1.07B | $9.93B | $547M | $6.24B | $228.85B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $238M | $4.26B | $2.46B | $2.91B | $34.66B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $15M | $40M | $-91M | $207M | $7.13B |
| Gross Margin | 24.6% | 32.6% | 23.1% | 35.4% | 46.0% |
| Operating Margin | 7.7% | 8.5% | 2.1% | 16.2% | 28.8% |
| Forward P/E | 79.7x | 16.4x | — | 17.7x | 27.7x |
| Total Debt | $7M | $3.74B | $2.16B | $1.43B | $26.99B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $22M | $366M | $106M | $186M | $5.06B |
GHM vs GTLS vs FWRD vs ESAB vs LIN — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Mar 22 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Graham Corporation (GHM) | 100 | 1259.1 | +1159.1% |
| Chart Industries, I… (GTLS) | 100 | 120.7 | +20.7% |
| Forward Air Corpora… (FWRD) | 100 | 17.7 | -82.3% |
| ESAB Corporation (ESAB) | 100 | 204.8 | +104.8% |
| Linde plc (LIN) | 100 | 154.6 | +54.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: GHM vs GTLS vs FWRD vs ESAB vs LIN
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
GHM is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 13.1%, EPS growth 164.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 19.6%
- 439.3% 10Y total return vs GTLS's 7.7%
- 13.1% revenue growth vs FWRD's 0.8%
- +192.5% vs ESAB's -15.8%
GTLS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for value.
- Better valuation composite
FWRD lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
ESAB is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.24, Low D/E 64.8%, current ratio 1.90x
LIN carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and valuation efficiency.
- Dividend streak 6 yrs, beta 0.24, yield 1.2%
- PEG 1.09 vs ESAB's 2.44
- Beta 0.24, yield 1.2%, current ratio 0.88x
- 20.6% margin vs FWRD's -3.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 13.1% revenue growth vs FWRD's 0.8% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 20.6% margin vs FWRD's -3.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.24 vs FWRD's 2.28, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 1.2% yield, 6-year raise streak, vs GTLS's 0.3%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +192.5% vs ESAB's -15.8% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 8.3% ROA vs FWRD's -3.3%, ROIC 11.3% vs 1.2% |
GHM vs GTLS vs FWRD vs ESAB vs LIN — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
GHM vs GTLS vs FWRD vs ESAB vs LIN — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
GHM leads in 2 of 6 categories
LIN leads 1 • GTLS leads 0 • FWRD leads 0 • ESAB leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
LIN leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
LIN is the larger business by revenue, generating $34.7B annually — 145.9x GHM's $238M. LIN is the more profitable business, keeping 20.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to FWRD's -3.7%. On growth, GHM holds the edge at +20.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $238M | $4.3B | $2.5B | $2.9B | $34.7B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $25M | $644M | $206M | $539M | $12.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $15M | $40M | -$91M | $207M | $7.1B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$6M | $203M | $38M | $218M | $5.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +24.6% | +32.6% | +23.1% | +35.4% | +46.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +7.7% | +8.5% | +2.1% | +16.2% | +28.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +6.3% | +0.9% | -3.7% | +7.1% | +20.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -2.6% | +4.8% | +1.6% | +7.5% | +14.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +20.5% | -2.5% | -5.1% | +9.9% | +8.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +78.6% | -36.1% | +35.1% | -29.1% | +13.4% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — GTLS and FWRD and ESAB each lead in 2 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 27.5x trailing earnings, ESAB trades at a 96% valuation discount to GTLS's 628.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), LIN offers better value at 1.33x vs ESAB's 3.79x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.1B | $9.9B | $547M | $6.2B | $228.8B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.1B | $13.3B | $2.6B | $7.5B | $250.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 87.46x | 628.45x | -4.98x | 27.53x | 33.85x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 79.70x | 16.40x | — | 17.74x | 27.67x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 2.07x | — | — | 3.79x | 1.33x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 49.80x | 14.33x | 13.75x | 13.00x | 19.75x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 5.08x | 2.33x | 0.22x | 2.19x | 6.73x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 8.98x | 2.79x | 3.32x | 2.82x | 5.82x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 199.05x | 48.95x | 35.82x | 29.24x | 44.97x |
Profitability & Efficiency
GHM leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
LIN delivers a 17.8% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $18 in annual profit, vs $-53 for FWRD. GHM carries lower financial leverage with a 0.06x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FWRD's 13.36x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), GHM scores 7/9 vs ESAB's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +11.4% | +1.2% | -52.6% | +9.5% | +17.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +5.1% | +0.4% | -3.3% | +4.2% | +8.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +11.3% | +7.4% | +1.2% | +11.9% | +11.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +12.5% | +8.6% | +1.5% | +13.1% | +13.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.06x | 1.11x | 13.36x | 0.65x | 0.68x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$15M | $3.4B | $2.1B | $1.2B | $21.9B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $22M | $366M | $106M | $186M | $5.1B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $7M | $3.7B | $2.2B | $1.4B | $27.0B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | 1.08x | 0.32x | 3.40x | 34.52x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
GHM leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in GHM five years ago would be worth $67,226 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,978 for FWRD. Over the past 12 months, GHM leads with a +192.5% total return vs ESAB's -15.8%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors GHM at 98.2% vs FWRD's -42.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +46.2% | +0.6% | -31.0% | -8.9% | +15.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +192.5% | +37.6% | +0.6% | -15.8% | +11.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +679.1% | +62.7% | -81.3% | +75.8% | +39.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +572.3% | +29.5% | -80.2% | +107.2% | +73.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +439.3% | +772.5% | -47.3% | +107.2% | +375.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +98.2% | +17.6% | -42.8% | +20.7% | +11.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — GTLS and LIN each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
LIN is the less volatile stock with a 0.24 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than FWRD's 2.28 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. GTLS currently trades 99.5% from its 52-week high vs FWRD's 53.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.24x | 0.56x | 2.28x | 1.24x | 0.24x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $100.96 | $208.51 | $32.47 | $137.42 | $521.28 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $32.90 | $140.50 | $14.81 | $89.41 | $387.78 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +96.2% | +99.5% | +53.4% | +74.5% | +94.7% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 59.3 | 51.2 | 42.4 | 50.7 | 51.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 127K | 1.6M | 733K | 612K | 2.3M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — FWRD and LIN each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: GHM as "Hold", GTLS as "Buy", FWRD as "Hold", ESAB as "Buy", LIN as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 113.5% upside for FWRD (target: $37) vs -17.6% for GHM (target: $80). For income investors, LIN offers the higher dividend yield at 1.21% vs GTLS's 0.29%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $80.00 | $193.81 | $37.00 | $146.67 | $539.71 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 4 | 37 | 21 | 10 | 28 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.3% | — | +0.4% | +1.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 1 | 8 | 4 | 6 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.60 | — | $0.36 | $6.00 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.1% | 0.0% | +0.2% | 0.0% | +2.0% |
GHM leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). LIN leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 3 tied.
GHM vs GTLS vs FWRD vs ESAB vs LIN: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GHM or GTLS or FWRD or ESAB or LIN a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Graham Corporation (GHM) is the stronger pick with 13.
1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 0. 8% for Forward Air Corporation (FWRD). ESAB Corporation (ESAB) offers the better valuation at 27. 5x trailing P/E (17. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Chart Industries, Inc. (GTLS) a "Buy" — based on 37 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 — GHM or GTLS or FWRD or ESAB or LIN?
On trailing P/E, ESAB Corporation (ESAB) is the cheapest at 27.
5x versus Chart Industries, Inc. at 628. 5x. On forward P/E, Chart Industries, Inc. is actually cheaper at 16. 4x — 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: Linde plc wins at 1. 09x versus ESAB Corporation's 2. 44x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — GHM or GTLS or FWRD or ESAB or LIN?
Over the past 5 years, Graham Corporation (GHM) delivered a total return of +572.
3%, compared to -80. 2% for Forward Air Corporation (FWRD). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GTLS returned +772. 5% versus FWRD's -47. 3%. 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 — GHM or GTLS or FWRD or ESAB or LIN?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Linde plc (LIN) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
24β versus Forward Air Corporation's 2. 28β — meaning FWRD is approximately 850% more volatile than LIN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Graham Corporation (GHM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 6% versus 13% for Forward Air Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — GHM or GTLS or FWRD or ESAB or LIN?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Graham Corporation (GHM) is pulling ahead at 13.
1% versus 0. 8% for Forward Air Corporation (FWRD). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Graham Corporation grew EPS 164. 3% year-over-year, compared to -92. 0% for Chart Industries, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, GTLS leads at 38. 3% 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 — GHM or GTLS or FWRD or ESAB or LIN?
Linde plc (LIN) is the more profitable company, earning 20.
3% net margin versus -4. 3% for Forward Air Corporation — meaning it keeps 20. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: LIN leads at 26. 3% versus 1. 5% for FWRD. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — LIN leads at 43. 3%, 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 GHM or GTLS or FWRD or ESAB or LIN 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, Linde plc (LIN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 09x versus ESAB Corporation's 2. 44x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Chart Industries, Inc. (GTLS) trades at 16. 4x forward P/E versus 79. 7x for Graham Corporation — 63. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FWRD: 113. 5% to $37. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — GHM or GTLS or FWRD or ESAB or LIN?
In this comparison, LIN (1.
2% yield), ESAB (0. 4% yield), GTLS (0. 3% yield) pay a dividend. GHM, FWRD do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is GHM or GTLS or FWRD or ESAB or LIN better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Linde plc (LIN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
24), 1. 2% yield, +375. 2% 10Y return). Forward Air Corporation (FWRD) carries a higher beta of 2. 28 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (LIN: +375. 2%, FWRD: -47. 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 GHM and GTLS and FWRD and ESAB and LIN?
These companies operate in different sectors (GHM (Industrials) and GTLS (Industrials) and FWRD (Industrials) and ESAB (Industrials) and LIN (Basic Materials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
LIN pays a dividend while GHM, GTLS, FWRD, ESAB 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.