FER vs. FLS: Ferrovial vs. Flowserve Stock Comparison

November 11, 2026

How do Ferrovial (FER) and Flowserve (FLS) stack up? This page sets them side by side across company profile, performance and risk, profitability, growth, financial strength, dividends, and valuation, with selected fundamentals also measured against each stock's industry-group peers.

Company Profile

Ferrovial (FER) and Flowserve (FLS) both fall under the Capital Goods industry group, but FER is classified in Construction & Engineering while FLS is classified in Machinery.

Company profile comparison for Ferrovial (FER) and Flowserve (FLS)
Profile Item	FER	FLS
Name	Ferrovial N.V.	Flowserve Corporation
Country/Region	Netherlands	United States
GICS Sector	Industrials	Industrials
GICS Industry Group	Capital Goods	Capital Goods
GICS Industry	Construction & Engineering	Machinery
GICS Sub-Industry	Construction & Engineering	Industrial Machinery & Supplies & Components
Market Capitalization	42.19 billion USD	10.19 billion USD
Currency	USD	USD
Exchange	Nasdaq	NYSE
Listing Date	August 13, 2012	March 17, 1980
Security Type	Common Stock	Common Stock

Price Performance

Cumulative Growth

FER

FLS

GSPC

Ferrovial (FER) vs. Flowserve (FLS), with S&P 500 (GSPC) for reference: Growth of a $10,000 investment over the past five years. Adjusted for dividends and splits.

Trailing Returns

Loading price history…

Trailing total returns for Ferrovial (FER) and Flowserve (FLS). Returns over one year are annualized.

Calendar-Year Returns

Loading price history…

Calendar-year total returns for Ferrovial (FER) and Flowserve (FLS). Each bar is that year's total return, measured year-end to year-end.

Performance Metrics

Price performance metrics for Ferrovial (FER) and Flowserve (FLS)
Metric	FER	FLS
Total Return (1Y)	-1.10%	24.11%
Total Return (3Y, Annualized)	26.01%	33.68%
Total Return (5Y, Annualized)	17.20%	22.48%

Risk Profile

Drawdown History

FER

FLS

GSPC

Ferrovial (FER) vs. Flowserve (FLS), with S&P 500 (GSPC) for reference: Drawdown from the running peak over the past five years. Each line shows the decline from its prior peak; 0% marks a new high.

Return Distribution

Loading price history…

Distribution of monthly total returns for Ferrovial (FER) and Flowserve (FLS). Each bar is the share of months whose return fell in that 5% bucket.

Risk Metrics

Risk profile metrics for Ferrovial (FER) and Flowserve (FLS)
Metric	FER	FLS
Volatility (1Y, Annualized)	27.38%	42.18%
Beta (5Y)	0.36	1.24
Max Drawdown (5Y)	-33.67%	-38.76%
Avg. Volume (3M)	1.95M	1.61M

Risk-Adjusted Performance

Risk-Return Positioning

FER and FLS are plotted by 1-year volatility (risk) and 1-year return. The dashed Capital Allocation Line runs from the risk-free rate through the shared industry median.

Risk-Adjusted Metrics

Risk-adjusted metrics for Ferrovial (FER) and Flowserve (FLS)
Metric	FER	FLS
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)	-0.20	0.47
Sortino Ratio (1Y)	-0.30	0.70

Profitability

ROE (TTM)

Both Ferrovial (FER) at 11.62% and Flowserve (FLS) at 11.61% land near their industries’ usual ROE ranges, so capital efficiency looks broadly in line with peers on both sides.

FER

Capital Goods industry group

11.62%

Max: 40.55%
Q3: 19.29%
Median: 12.12%
FER: 11.62%
Q1: 4.08%
Min: -17.12%

FLS

Capital Goods industry group

11.61%

Max: 40.55%
Q3: 19.29%
Median: 12.12%
FLS: 11.61%
Q1: 4.08%
Min: -17.12%

Ferrovial (FER) vs. Flowserve (FLS): A comparison of their ROE against the Capital Goods industry group benchmark.

Net Margin (TTM)

Both Ferrovial (FER) at 6.15% and Flowserve (FLS) at 5.42% keep about the typical share of revenue as profit for their industries — neither bottom line stands out from peers.

FER

Capital Goods industry group

6.15%

Max: 27.47%
Q3: 12.10%
Median: 6.30%
FER: 6.15%
Q1: 1.40%
Min: -12.89%

FLS

Capital Goods industry group

5.42%

Max: 27.47%
Q3: 12.10%
Median: 6.30%
FLS: 5.42%
Q1: 1.40%
Min: -12.89%

Ferrovial (FER) vs. Flowserve (FLS): A comparison of their net margin against the Capital Goods industry group benchmark.

Operating Margin (TTM)

Both Ferrovial (FER) at 10.45% and Flowserve (FLS) at 13.45% run core operations about as efficiently as their industries’ norm — neither stands out on operating profitability.

FER

Capital Goods industry group

10.45%

Max: 36.60%
Q3: 18.33%
Median: 11.12%
FER: 10.45%
Q1: 5.14%
Min: -12.63%

FLS

Capital Goods industry group

13.45%

Max: 36.60%
Q3: 18.33%
FLS: 13.45%
Median: 11.12%
Q1: 5.14%
Min: -12.63%

Ferrovial (FER) vs. Flowserve (FLS): A comparison of their operating margin against the Capital Goods industry group benchmark.

Profitability Metrics

Profitability metrics for Ferrovial (FER) and Flowserve (FLS)
Metric	FER	FLS
ROE (TTM)	11.62%	11.61%
ROA (TTM)	2.62%	6.36%
Net Margin (TTM)	6.15%	5.42%
Operating Margin (TTM)	10.45%	13.45%
Gross Margin (TTM)	87.14%	35.30%

Growth

Revenue Growth

Both Ferrovial (FER) at 5.24% and Flowserve (FLS) at 3.76% land near their industries' usual revenue growth ranges, so top-line momentum looks broadly in line with peers on both sides.

Ferrovial (FER) vs. Flowserve (FLS): A comparison of their Revenue Growth across different time periods.

EPS Growth

Flowserve (FLS) at 23.36% is around its peer norm for EPS growth, while Ferrovial (FER) at -72.26% drops into the bottom quartile, signaling weaker earnings momentum.

Ferrovial (FER) vs. Flowserve (FLS): A comparison of their EPS Growth across different time periods.

Growth Metrics

Growth metrics for Ferrovial (FER) and Flowserve (FLS)
Metric	FER	FLS
Revenue Growth (YoY)	5.24%	3.76%
Revenue Growth (3Y CAGR)	8.43%	9.37%
EPS Growth (YoY)	-72.26%	23.36%
EPS Growth (3Y CAGR)	70.54%	22.39%

Financial Strength

Current Ratio (MRQ)

Flowserve (FLS) at 2.10 keeps current ratio within its industry’s typical mid-range, while Ferrovial (FER) at 1.20 runs in the tighter-liquidity quartile — a thinner cushion against current liabilities for FER.

FER

Capital Goods industry group

1.20

Max: 5.22
Q3: 2.95
Median: 2.08
Q1: 1.43
FER: 1.20
Min: 0.36

FLS

Capital Goods industry group

2.10

Max: 5.22
Q3: 2.95
FLS: 2.10
Median: 2.08
Q1: 1.43
Min: 0.36

Ferrovial (FER) vs. Flowserve (FLS): A comparison of their current ratio against the Capital Goods industry group benchmark.

Debt / Equity (MRQ)

Flowserve (FLS) at 0.95 carries an industry-typical debt-to-equity mix, while Ferrovial (FER) at 1.44 uses more debt funding than most peers.

FER

Capital Goods industry group

1.44

Max: 2.33
FER: 1.44
Q3: 1.12
Median: 0.60
Q1: 0.29
Min: 0.00

FLS

Capital Goods industry group

0.95

Max: 2.33
Q3: 1.12
FLS: 0.95
Median: 0.60
Q1: 0.29
Min: 0.00

Ferrovial (FER) vs. Flowserve (FLS): A comparison of their debt-to-equity ratio against the Capital Goods industry group benchmark.

Financial Strength Metrics

Financial strength metrics for Ferrovial (FER) and Flowserve (FLS)
Metric	FER	FLS
Current Ratio (MRQ)	1.20	2.10
Debt / Equity (MRQ)	1.44	0.95
Net Debt / EBITDA	4.39	2.08

Dividends

Dividend Yield (TTM)

Both Ferrovial (FER) at 0.94% and Flowserve (FLS) at 1.11% pay solid, industry-typical yields, sitting squarely within their peers’ usual range.

FER

Capital Goods industry group

0.94%

Max: 2.66%
Q3: 1.14%
FER: 0.94%
Median: 0.24%
Q1: 0.00%
Min: 0.00%

FLS

Capital Goods industry group

1.11%

Max: 2.66%
Q3: 1.14%
FLS: 1.11%
Median: 0.24%
Q1: 0.00%
Min: 0.00%

Ferrovial (FER) vs. Flowserve (FLS): A comparison of their dividend yield against the Capital Goods industry group benchmark.

Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)

Both pay out more than their industries’ typical bands, and FER more so: Flowserve (FLS) at 43.50% sits above the band, while Ferrovial (FER) at 71.24% exceeds every peer in its group.

FER

Capital Goods industry group

71.24%

FER: 71.24%
Max: 67.39%
Q3: 28.02%
Median: 6.86%
Q1: 0.00%
Min: 0.00%

FLS

Capital Goods industry group

43.50%

Max: 67.39%
FLS: 43.50%
Q3: 28.02%
Median: 6.86%
Q1: 0.00%
Min: 0.00%

Ferrovial (FER) vs. Flowserve (FLS): A comparison of their payout ratio against the Capital Goods industry group benchmark.

Dividend Metrics

Dividend metrics for Ferrovial (FER) and Flowserve (FLS)
Metric	FER	FLS
Dividend Yield (TTM)	0.94%	1.11%
Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)	71.24%	43.50%

Valuation

P/E Ratio (TTM)

Ferrovial (FER) at 32.26 is near its industry’s usual P/E ratio, while Flowserve (FLS) at 40.19 sits in the richer quartile — FLS needs stronger growth or earnings quality to justify the premium.

FER

Capital Goods industry group

32.26

Max: 59.38
Q3: 35.92
FER: 32.26
Median: 25.41
Q1: 19.47
Min: 3.03

FLS

Capital Goods industry group

40.19

Max: 59.38
FLS: 40.19
Q3: 35.92
Median: 25.41
Q1: 19.47
Min: 3.03

Ferrovial (FER) vs. Flowserve (FLS): A comparison of their P/E ratio against the Capital Goods industry group benchmark.

P/S Ratio (TTM)

Flowserve (FLS) at 2.17 is priced about in line with its industry on P/S ratio, while Ferrovial (FER) at 4.28 sits in the pricier quartile — FER costs more per dollar of sales.

FER

Capital Goods industry group

4.28

Max: 7.54
FER: 4.28
Q3: 3.76
Median: 2.15
Q1: 1.03
Min: 0.03

FLS

Capital Goods industry group

2.17

Max: 7.54
Q3: 3.76
FLS: 2.17
Median: 2.15
Q1: 1.03
Min: 0.03

Ferrovial (FER) vs. Flowserve (FLS): A comparison of their P/S ratio against the Capital Goods industry group benchmark.

P/B Ratio (MRQ)

Flowserve (FLS) at 4.40 is valued about in line with its industry on P/B ratio, while Ferrovial (FER) at 6.59 carries an above-peer premium to book — FER is pricier on assets.

FER

Capital Goods industry group

6.59

Max: 9.66
FER: 6.59
Q3: 5.00
Median: 3.12
Q1: 1.81
Min: -1.08

FLS

Capital Goods industry group

4.40

Max: 9.66
Q3: 5.00
FLS: 4.40
Median: 3.12
Q1: 1.81
Min: -1.08

Ferrovial (FER) vs. Flowserve (FLS): A comparison of their P/B ratio against the Capital Goods industry group benchmark.

Valuation Metrics

Valuation metrics for Ferrovial (FER) and Flowserve (FLS)
Metric	FER	FLS
P/E Ratio (TTM)	32.26	40.19
P/S Ratio (TTM)	4.28	2.17
P/B Ratio (MRQ)	6.59	4.40
Free Cash Flow Yield (TTM)	2.11%	3.62%