Parsons vs TransDigm Group
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRA’s take AI analyst
I put Parsons and TransDigm Group side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- TransDigm Group is the larger business, with $8.8B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $6.4B for Parsons.
- TransDigm Group grew revenue faster (11.2%, against −5.7%).
- TransDigm Group kept more of each dollar of sales as operating profit (47.2% operating margin, against 6.6%).
- TransDigm Group turned more of its sales into free cash flow (20.6% FCF margin, against 6.5%).
- TransDigm Group earned a higher return on the capital invested in it (22.5%, against 9.8%).
- Investors pay more for each dollar of TransDigm Group’s earnings: a P/E of 34.3x against 23.9x for Parsons.
Who comes out ahead
Of the 10 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
Parsons
PSN
3/10
Piotroski F-scoreNet debt / EBITDAShare count change
TransDigm Group
TDG
7/10
Revenue growth5-year growthGross marginOperating marginNet marginFCF marginReturn on capital
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | PSN FY25 | TDG FY25 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $5.4B | $64.8B |
| Revenue | $6.4B | $8.8B |
| Free cash flow | $410M | $1.8B |
| Net income | $241M | $2.1B |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | −5.7% | 11.2% |
| 5-year growth | 10.2% | 11.6% |
| Share count change | −2.2% | 0.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 22.5% | 60.1% |
| Operating margin | 6.6% | 47.2% |
| Net margin | 3.8% | 23.5% |
| FCF margin | 6.5% | 20.6% |
| Return on capital | 9.8% | 22.5% |
| Return on equity | 9.5% | — |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | $781M | $26.8B |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.5x | 5.9x |
| Dividends and buybacks | $125M | $659M |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | 23.9x | 34.3x |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 4 |
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.