Northrop Grumman holds the cleaner structural position, with valuation as the main driver and profitability adding further support. Curtiss-Wright does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. In the market, Curtiss-Wright carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Northrop Grumman's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Northrop Grumman, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
The clearest score difference appears in valuation. Northrop Grumman Corporation leads by 18 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Aerospace & Defense
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CW and NOC share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Curtiss-Wright and Northrop Grumman 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.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Curtiss-Wright Corporation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CW and NOC each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 26 turns lower.
Curtiss-Wright Corporation still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Valuation is the clearest driver, and profitability also supports Northrop Grumman Corporation's broader structural position.
Break down the CW vs NOC comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CW and NOC 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.