Northrop Grumman holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across profitability and growth. Rolls-Royce still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Rolls-Royce 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. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (NOC: S&P 500, RR.L: STOXX 600).
On profitability, the clearer edge sits with Rolls-Royce Holdings plc, while the overall score remains tighter and points the other way.
Both operate in: Aerospace & Defense
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. NOC and RR.L share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Northrop Grumman and Rolls-Royce each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
Northrop Grumman Corporation still looks stronger, and the price setup does not materially undermine that lead.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The profitability gap is wide, with the stronger side earning materially better operating marks.
On the market side, Rolls-Royce carries the stronger trend while Northrop Grumman's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
The lead is built on both profitability and growth — though profitability still provides a counterweight.
Break down the NOC vs RR.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how NOC and RR.L 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.