ROK vs NNDM

For growth investors, Nano Dimension Ltd.

(NNDM) is the stronger pick with 77. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 0% for Rockwell Automation, Inc. (ROK). Rockwell Automation, Inc. (ROK) offers the better valuation at 58. 5x trailing P/E (36. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Rockwell Automation, Inc. (ROK) a "Hold" — based on 39 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, Rockwell Automation, Inc.

is actually cheaper at 36. 9x.

Over the past 5 years, Rockwell Automation, Inc.

(ROK) delivered a total return of +74. 6%, compared to -72. 3% for Nano Dimension Ltd. (NNDM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ROK returned +341. 0% versus NNDM's -97. 5%. 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), Rockwell Automation, Inc.

(ROK) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 33β versus Nano Dimension Ltd. 's 1. 74β — meaning NNDM is approximately 31% more volatile than ROK relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Nano Dimension Ltd. (NNDM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 2% versus 98% for Rockwell Automation, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Nano Dimension Ltd.

(NNDM) is pulling ahead at 77. 3% versus 1. 0% for Rockwell Automation, Inc. (ROK). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Rockwell Automation, Inc. grew EPS -7. 4% year-over-year, compared to -211. 4% for Nano Dimension Ltd.. Over a 3-year CAGR, NNDM leads at 32. 9% 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.

Rockwell Automation, Inc.

(ROK) is the more profitable company, earning 10. 4% net margin versus -98. 0% for Nano Dimension Ltd. — meaning it keeps 10. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ROK leads at 17. 1% versus -89. 7% for NNDM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ROK leads at 48. 1%, 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, Rockwell Automation, Inc.

(ROK) trades at 36. 9x forward P/E versus 185. 0x for Nano Dimension Ltd. — 148. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis.

In this comparison, ROK (1.

2% yield) pays a dividend. NNDM does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Rockwell Automation, Inc.

(ROK) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (1. 2% yield, +341. 0% 10Y return). Nano Dimension Ltd. (NNDM) carries a higher beta of 1. 74 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (ROK: +341. 0%, NNDM: -97. 5%), 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.

These companies operate in different sectors (ROK (Industrials) and NNDM (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

In terms of investment character: ROK is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; NNDM is a small-cap high-growth stock. ROK pays a dividend while NNDM 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.