MEC vs CW

For growth investors, Curtiss-Wright Corporation (CW) is the stronger pick with 12.

1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -6. 0% for Mayville Engineering Company, Inc. (MEC). Curtiss-Wright Corporation (CW) offers the better valuation at 56. 2x trailing P/E (48. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Mayville Engineering Company, Inc. (MEC) a "Buy" — based on 7 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 forward P/E, Curtiss-Wright Corporation is actually cheaper at 48.

0x.

Over the past 5 years, Curtiss-Wright Corporation (CW) delivered a total return of +449.

0%, compared to +50. 0% for Mayville Engineering Company, Inc. (MEC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CW returned +815. 8% versus MEC's +57. 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), Mayville Engineering Company, Inc.

(MEC) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 18β versus Curtiss-Wright Corporation's 1. 23β — meaning CW is approximately 5% more volatile than MEC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Mayville Engineering Company, Inc. (MEC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 11% versus 52% for Curtiss-Wright Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Curtiss-Wright Corporation (CW) is pulling ahead at 12.

1% versus -6. 0% for Mayville Engineering Company, Inc. (MEC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Curtiss-Wright Corporation grew EPS 22. 0% year-over-year, compared to -132. 3% for Mayville Engineering Company, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CW leads at 11. 0% 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.

Curtiss-Wright Corporation (CW) is the more profitable company, earning 13.

8% net margin versus -1. 5% for Mayville Engineering Company, Inc. — meaning it keeps 13. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CW leads at 18. 2% versus -0. 7% for MEC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CW leads at 37. 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.

On forward earnings alone, Curtiss-Wright Corporation (CW) trades at 48.

0x forward P/E versus 217. 8x for Mayville Engineering Company, Inc. — 169. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CW: -2. 0% to $708. 50.

In this comparison, CW (0.

1% yield) pays a dividend. MEC does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

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

23), +815. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CW: +815. 8%, MEC: +57. 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.