BAE Systems holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and growth adding further support. L3Harris Technologies still leads on growth and valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup broadly confirms the structural lead — BAE Systems holds the more constructive position. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — BAE Systems's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (BA.L: STOXX 600, LHX: S&P 500).
The comparison is mainly decided in profitability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight.
Both operate in: Aerospace & Defense
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. BA.L and LHX share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how BAE Systems and L3Harris Technologies each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
BAE Systems plc still looks stronger overall, though current pricing looks more supportive for L3Harris Technologies, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 6.9-point ROIC advantage.
L3Harris Technologies still pushes back on growth by a very wide margin, which keeps the read from becoming one-way.
The profitability edge is decisive, even though current pricing and growth still lean somewhat toward L3Harris Technologies, Inc..
Break down the BA.L vs LHX comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how BA.L and LHX each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.