LECO vs PH

For growth investors, Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.

(LECO) is the stronger pick with 5. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -0. 4% for Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH). 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 Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH) a "Buy" — based on 38 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 Parker-Hannifin Corporation at 32. 7x. On forward P/E, Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. is actually cheaper at 25. 1x. 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 Parker-Hannifin Corporation's 1. 20x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.

Over the past 5 years, Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH) delivered a total return of +186.

4%, compared to +112. 4% for Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. (LECO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PH returned +737. 4% versus LECO's +389. 7%. 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), Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH) is the lower-risk stock at 1.

00β versus Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. 's 1. 13β — meaning LECO is approximately 13% more volatile than PH relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 70% versus 88% for Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.

(LECO) is pulling ahead at 5. 5% versus -0. 4% for Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Parker-Hannifin Corporation grew EPS 24. 2% year-over-year, compared to 14. 4% for Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, PH leads at 7. 8% 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.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH) is the more profitable company, earning 17.

8% net margin versus 12. 3% for Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 17. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: PH leads at 20. 5% versus 16. 9% for LECO. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — PH leads at 36. 9%, 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 Parker-Hannifin Corporation's 1. 20x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. (LECO) trades at 25. 1x forward P/E versus 28. 6x for Parker-Hannifin Corporation — 3. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for PH: 17. 6% to $1042. 08.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. (LECO) offers the highest yield at 1. 1%, versus 0. 7% for Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH).

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

00), 0. 7% yield, +737. 4% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (PH: +737. 4%, LECO: +389. 7%), 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.