Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LMT scored 65.0, TDG scored 74.9 — TDG leads.
Compare another set
LMT
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Aerospace & Defense · Quality-Growth
65
$509.59 · $117.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
9.9
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
CheapestLMT18.8x
Fastest growthTDG+16.6%
Highest qualityTDG82 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueLMT-13%
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)
LMT
stronger →← stronger
TDG
81
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
82
65
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
83
52
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
62
TDG is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LMT
TDG
$8.7bB+
FCF
$1.9bC+
+5.6%C+
Rev
+16.6%B+
2.34D
D/E
Negative equity
18.8xA-
P/E
33.6xC+
0.96B+
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
LMT
TDG
13% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
54% above
~1%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~22%/yr
+12%
1-yr DCF upside
-45%
+15%
5-yr DCF upside
-35%
+19%
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
LMT
Why this score
Durable high returns
TDG
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
LMTLockheed Martin Corporation
Aerospace & Defense · $509.59 · beta 0.10
Why now
Aerospace & Defense · market cap $117.6b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $692.00 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.96 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 21 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $625.76 (implying +23% upside).
Moat
ROE 89% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 139% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $117.6b 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
D/E 2.34 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer.
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 LMT and TDG diverge
On the headline score the gap is 9.9 points in favor of TDG. The widest single difference is Growth, where TDG leads by 18.1 points.
GrowthLMT 64.8 · TDG 82.9TDG +18.1
ValueLMT 52.1 · TDG 61.8TDG +9.7
QualityLMT 81.5 · TDG 82.0level
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 LMT the better stock?
TDG scores higher: TDG 74.9, LMT 65.0 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 LMT differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where TDG leads by 18 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. TDG also leads value, while quality is effectively level between them.
How are TDG and LMT 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.