Curtiss-Wright vs Moog
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRA’s take AI analyst
I put Curtiss-Wright and Moog side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- Moog is the larger business, with $3.9B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $3.5B for Curtiss-Wright.
- Curtiss-Wright grew revenue faster (12.1%, against 7.0%).
- Curtiss-Wright kept more of each dollar of sales as operating profit (18.1% operating margin, against 11.7%).
- Curtiss-Wright turned more of its sales into free cash flow (15.8% FCF margin, against 3.3%).
- Curtiss-Wright earned a higher return on the capital invested in it (15.9%, against 11.7%).
- Investors pay more for each dollar of Curtiss-Wright’s earnings: a P/E of 32.8x against 30.5x for Moog.
Who comes out ahead
Of the 11 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
Curtiss-Wright
CW
11/11
Revenue growth5-year growthGross marginOperating marginNet marginFCF marginReturn on capitalReturn on equityPiotroski F-scoreNet debt / EBITDAShare count change
Moog
MOG-A
0/11
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | CW FY25 | MOG-A FY25 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $17.7B | $11.5B |
| Revenue | $3.5B | $3.9B |
| Free cash flow | $554M | $128M |
| Net income | $484M | $235M |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | 12.1% | 7.0% |
| 5-year growth | 7.9% | 6.0% |
| Share count change | −1.9% | −0.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 37.2% | 27.4% |
| Operating margin | 18.1% | 11.7% |
| Net margin | 13.8% | 6.1% |
| FCF margin | 15.8% | 3.3% |
| Return on capital | 15.9% | 11.7% |
| Return on equity | 19.4% | 12.3% |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | $587M | $1.0B |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.8x | 1.8x |
| Dividends and buybacks | $500M | $179M |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | 32.8x | 30.5x |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 | 7 |
Ten years
Revenue
Operating margin
Free cash flow
Return on capital
Each company's latest fiscal year; fiscal years end in different months. The best value in each row is highlighted where higher (or lower) is clearly better. Not investment advice.