TAYD vs CW

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

1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 3. 8% for Taylor Devices, Inc. (TAYD). Taylor Devices, Inc. (TAYD) offers the better valuation at 18. 1x trailing P/E (16. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Curtiss-Wright Corporation (CW) a "Buy" — based on 25 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, Taylor Devices, Inc.

(TAYD) is the cheapest at 18. 1x versus Curtiss-Wright Corporation at 56. 2x. On forward P/E, Taylor Devices, Inc. is actually cheaper at 16. 6x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Taylor Devices, Inc. wins at 0. 62x versus Curtiss-Wright Corporation's 2. 20x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

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

0%, compared to +325. 0% for Taylor Devices, Inc. (TAYD). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CW returned +815. 8% versus TAYD's +225. 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), Taylor Devices, Inc.

(TAYD) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 66β versus Curtiss-Wright Corporation's 1. 23β — meaning CW is approximately 87% more volatile than TAYD relative to the S&P 500.

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

1% versus 3. 8% for Taylor Devices, Inc. (TAYD). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Curtiss-Wright Corporation grew EPS 22. 0% year-over-year, compared to 11. 2% for Taylor Devices, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, TAYD leads at 14. 5% 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.

Taylor Devices, Inc.

(TAYD) is the more profitable company, earning 20. 3% net margin versus 13. 8% for Curtiss-Wright Corporation — meaning it keeps 20. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: TAYD leads at 20. 8% versus 18. 2% for CW. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — TAYD leads at 46. 4%, 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, Taylor Devices, Inc. (TAYD) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 62x versus Curtiss-Wright Corporation's 2. 20x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Taylor Devices, Inc. (TAYD) trades at 16. 6x forward P/E versus 48. 0x for Curtiss-Wright Corporation — 31. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis.

In this comparison, CW (0.

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

For long-horizon retirement investors, Taylor Devices, Inc.

(TAYD) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 66), +225. 2% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (TAYD: +225. 2%, CW: +815. 8%), 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.