Curtiss-Wright holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across stability and profitability. ITT still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is broadly comparable for both — no clear directional signal from price behavior. The market is not adding a decisive signal either way — the structural read carries the weight.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The clearest separation starts in stability, but profitability adds another real layer to the result. Curtiss-Wright Corporation leads by 12 points on the overall comparison score.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A solid similarity means the pair shares a clearly comparable long-term financial profile, even if individual dimensions still differ.
The strongest overlap appears in revenue stability and margin consistency.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Curtiss-Wright Corporation is stronger, but the price setup still looks more supportive for ITT Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The clearest distance comes from a steadier profile over time.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for ITT, with a forward P/E that is 20.4 turns lower there.
The lead is built on both stability and profitability — though valuation still provides a counterweight.
Break down the CW vs ITT comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CW and ITT 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.
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.