Woodward leads structurally, with growth as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Lockheed Martin still leads on profitability and valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is mixed, without a decisive signal in either direction. 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. Both peer scores are relative to the Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
The comparison is mainly decided in growth, 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. LMT and WWD share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Lockheed Martin and Woodward each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Woodward, Inc. occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although Lockheed Martin Corporation still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where LMT and WWD each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Revenue growth reinforces the category-level growth lead.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Lockheed Martin, with a forward P/E that is 21.8 turns lower there.
The page question resolves through growth, but valuation and current pricing still keep the broader comparison from reading as fully aligned.
Break down the LMT vs WWD comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how LMT and WWD 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.