LECO vs EMR vs AME vs NDSN

For growth investors, AMETEK, Inc.

(AME) is the stronger pick with 6. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 3. 0% for Emerson Electric Co. (EMR). Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. (LECO) offers the better valuation at 29. 1x trailing P/E (25. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Emerson Electric Co. (EMR) a "Buy" — based on 41 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, Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.

(LECO) is the cheapest at 29. 1x versus AMETEK, Inc. at 36. 6x. On forward P/E, Emerson Electric Co. is actually cheaper at 21. 7x — 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: Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. wins at 1. 13x versus Emerson Electric Co. 's 4. 81x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.

Over the past 5 years, Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.

(LECO) delivered a total return of +112. 4%, compared to +42. 4% for Nordson Corporation (NDSN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AME returned +423. 4% versus EMR's +206. 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), AMETEK, Inc.

(AME) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 93β versus Emerson Electric Co. 's 1. 52β — meaning EMR is approximately 63% 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 88% for Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. — 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. 0% for Emerson Electric Co. (EMR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Emerson Electric Co. grew EPS 17. 8% year-over-year, compared to 4. 9% for Nordson Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, EMR leads at 9. 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.

AMETEK, Inc.

(AME) is the more profitable company, earning 20. 0% net margin versus 12. 3% for Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. — 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 16. 9% for LECO. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NDSN leads at 55. 2%, 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, Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. (LECO) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 13x versus Emerson Electric Co. 's 4. 81x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Emerson Electric Co. (EMR) trades at 21. 7x forward P/E versus 29. 1x for AMETEK, Inc. — 7. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for EMR: 14. 8% to $161. 92.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Emerson Electric Co. (EMR) offers the highest yield at 1. 5%, 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, +423. 4% 10Y return). Emerson Electric Co. (EMR) carries a higher beta of 1. 52 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (AME: +423. 4%, EMR: +206. 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.