GRC vs AME

For growth investors, AMETEK, Inc.

(AME) is the stronger pick with 6. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 3. 4% for The Gorman-Rupp Company (GRC). AMETEK, Inc. (AME) offers the better valuation at 37. 7x trailing P/E (29. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate AMETEK, Inc. (AME) a "Buy" — based on 29 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, AMETEK, Inc.

(AME) is the cheapest at 37. 7x versus The Gorman-Rupp Company at 38. 5x. On forward P/E, AMETEK, Inc. is actually cheaper at 29. 9x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: The Gorman-Rupp Company wins at 1. 90x versus AMETEK, Inc. 's 2. 68x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.

Over the past 5 years, The Gorman-Rupp Company (GRC) delivered a total return of +128.

1%, compared to +81. 5% for AMETEK, Inc. (AME). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AME returned +433. 2% versus GRC's +210. 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), AMETEK, Inc.

(AME) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 93β versus The Gorman-Rupp Company's 1. 24β — meaning GRC is approximately 33% more volatile than AME relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, AMETEK, Inc. (AME) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 21% versus 79% for The Gorman-Rupp Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

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

(AME) is pulling ahead at 6. 6% versus 3. 4% for The Gorman-Rupp Company (GRC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Gorman-Rupp Company grew EPS 32. 0% year-over-year, compared to 7. 9% for AMETEK, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, GRC 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.

AMETEK, Inc.

(AME) is the more profitable company, earning 20. 0% net margin versus 7. 8% for The Gorman-Rupp Company — meaning it keeps 20. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AME leads at 26. 2% versus 14. 0% for GRC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AME leads at 36. 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.

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, The Gorman-Rupp Company (GRC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 90x versus AMETEK, Inc. 's 2. 68x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, AMETEK, Inc. (AME) trades at 29. 9x forward P/E versus 30. 1x for The Gorman-Rupp Company — 0. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

The Gorman-Rupp Company (GRC) offers the highest yield at 1. 0%, versus 0. 5% for AMETEK, Inc. (AME).

For long-horizon retirement investors, AMETEK, Inc.

(AME) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 93), 0. 5% yield, +433. 2% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (AME: +433. 2%, GRC: +210. 8%), 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.