PKE vs HAYW

For growth investors, Park Aerospace Corp.

(PKE) is the stronger pick with 10. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 6. 7% for Hayward Holdings, Inc. (HAYW). Hayward Holdings, Inc. (HAYW) offers the better valuation at 21. 9x trailing P/E (17. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Park Aerospace Corp. (PKE) a "Buy" — based on 1 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, Hayward Holdings, Inc.

(HAYW) is the cheapest at 21. 9x versus Park Aerospace Corp. at 118. 1x. On forward P/E, Hayward Holdings, Inc. is actually cheaper at 17. 4x.

Over the past 5 years, Park Aerospace Corp.

(PKE) delivered a total return of +170. 5%, compared to -37. 1% for Hayward Holdings, Inc. (HAYW). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PKE returned +217. 7% versus HAYW's -12. 2%. 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), Hayward Holdings, Inc.

(HAYW) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 14β versus Park Aerospace Corp. 's 1. 23β — meaning PKE is approximately 8% more volatile than HAYW relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Park Aerospace Corp. (PKE) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 1% for Hayward Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Park Aerospace Corp.

(PKE) is pulling ahead at 10. 8% versus 6. 7% for Hayward Holdings, Inc. (HAYW). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Hayward Holdings, Inc. grew EPS 25. 9% year-over-year, compared to -21. 6% for Park Aerospace Corp.. Over a 3-year CAGR, PKE leads at 5. 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.

Hayward Holdings, Inc.

(HAYW) is the more profitable company, earning 13. 5% net margin versus 9. 5% for Park Aerospace Corp. — meaning it keeps 13. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: HAYW leads at 21. 1% versus 15. 1% for PKE. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — HAYW leads at 45. 6%, 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, Hayward Holdings, Inc.

(HAYW) trades at 17. 4x forward P/E versus 38. 7x for Park Aerospace Corp. — 21. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis.

In this comparison, PKE (1.

5% yield) pays a dividend. HAYW does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Park Aerospace Corp.

(PKE) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 23), 1. 5% yield, +217. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (PKE: +217. 7%, HAYW: -12. 2%), 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.

PKE pays a dividend while HAYW does 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.