COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
ARXS vs HWM
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ARXS scored 49.3, HWM scored 66.8 — HWM leads.
Compare another set
ARXS
Arxis, Inc.
49.3
$53.26 · $22.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
17.5
HWM leads
HWM
Howmet Aerospace Inc.
66.8
$271.68 · $108.3B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- Fastest growthARXS+115.5%
- Strongest balance sheetARXS0.40
- Highest qualityHWM85 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
ARXS
stronger →← stronger
HWM
68
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
85
100
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
86
18
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
41
HWM is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ARXS
HWM
$199mC
FCF
$1.8bC+
+115.5%A
Rev
+18.1%B+
0.40B+
D/E
0.81B
13.0xD
P/S
—
—
PEG
0.80A-
—
P/E
58.4xD
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
ARXS
HWM
390% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
233% above
~58%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~45%/yr
-84%
1-yr DCF upside
-76%
-80%
5-yr DCF upside
-70%
-70%
10-yr DCF upside
-59%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ARXS
Why this score
- Short track record
HWM
Why this score
- Durable high returns
The companies
ARXSArxis, Inc.
Why now
Aerospace & Defense · market cap $22.9b. 13% off the 52-week high of $61.50. Revenue growing +115% — in hypergrowth territory. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $61.70 (implying +16% upside).
Moat
FCF converts 156% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
P/S 13.0x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
HWMHowmet Aerospace Inc.
Why now
Aerospace & Defense · market cap $108.3b. 12% off the 52-week high of $310.00. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.80 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $336.63 (implying +24% upside).
Moat
Net margin 21% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 33% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 96% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Trailing P/E 58.4x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. P/S 11.9x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where ARXS and HWM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 17.5 points in favor of HWM. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueARXS 17.5 · HWM 40.7HWM +23.2
- QualityARXS 68.1 · HWM 84.6HWM +16.5
- GrowthARXS 100.0 · HWM 86.4ARXS +13.6
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.