Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GD scored 62.5, TDG scored 74.9 — TDG leads.
Compare another set
GD
General Dynamics Corporation
Aerospace & Defense · Quality-Growth
62.5
$331.27 · $89.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
12.4
TDG leads
TDG
TransDigm Group Incorporated
Aerospace & Defense · Quality-Growth
74.9
$1,107.99 · $61.2B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestGD20.2x
Fastest growthTDG+16.6%
Highest qualityTDG82 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueGD-6%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
GD
stronger →← stronger
TDG
72
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
82
69
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
83
49
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
62
TDG is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GD
TDG
$5.7bB+
FCF
$1.9bC+
+9.3%B
Rev
+16.6%B+
0.35B+
D/E
Negative equity
20.2xB+
P/E
33.6xC+
2.04C
PEG
3.05D
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
GD
TDG
6% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
54% above
~5%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~22%/yr
0%
1-yr DCF upside
-45%
+7%
5-yr DCF upside
-35%
+18%
10-yr DCF upside
-17%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
GD
Why this score
Raising its dividend
TDG
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
GDGeneral Dynamics Corporation
Aerospace & Defense · $331.27 · beta 0.33
Why now
Aerospace & Defense · market cap $89.6b. 17% off the 52-week high of $400.00. 21 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $413.11 (implying +25% upside).
Moat
ROE 17% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 132% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $89.6b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Mature compounder — the risk is paying up for quality at a moment when growth is decelerating. Watch for sequential revenue + margin trends; the inflection from "compounder" to "ex-compounder" is hard to spot until the multiple already started compressing.
TDGTransDigm Group Incorporated
Aerospace & Defense · $1,107.99 · beta 0.94
Why now
Aerospace & Defense · market cap $61.2b. Down 24% from 52-week high of $1463.03 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +17%, comfortably above the S&P median. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $1,448 (implying +31% 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. $61.2b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Trailing P/E 34x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
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 GD and TDG diverge
On the headline score the gap is 12.4 points in favor of TDG. The widest single difference is Growth, where TDG leads by 13.7 points.
GrowthGD 69.2 · TDG 82.9TDG +13.7
ValueGD 48.8 · TDG 61.8TDG +13.0
QualityGD 72.3 · TDG 82.0TDG +9.7
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value 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.
Common questions
Is TDG or GD the better stock?
TDG scores higher: TDG 74.9, GD 62.5 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do TDG and GD differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where TDG leads by 14 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. TDG leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are TDG and GD scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.