Seek Returns logo

FLR vs. GD: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison

Updated on

Here’s a clear look at FLR and GD, comparing key factors like historical performance, profitability, financial strength, growth, dividend, and valuation.

Company Profile

SymbolFLRGD
Company NameFluor CorporationGeneral Dynamics Corporation
CountryUnited StatesUnited States
GICS SectorIndustrialsIndustrials
GICS IndustryConstruction & EngineeringAerospace & Defense
Market Capitalization6.93 billion USD91.66 billion USD
ExchangeNYSENYSE
Listing DateDecember 1, 2000January 2, 1962
Security TypeCommon StockCommon Stock

Historical Performance

This chart compares the performance of FLR and GD by tracking the growth of an initial $10,000 investment in each. Use the tabs to select the desired time period. Data is adjusted for dividends and splits.

FLR vs. GD: Growth of a $10,000 investment over the past one year.

Historical Performance at a Glance

SymbolFLRGD
5-Day Price Return-3.84%5.03%
13-Week Price Return-17.94%15.75%
26-Week Price Return11.47%26.44%
52-Week Price Return-12.15%12.76%
Month-to-Date Return2.56%-0.07%
Year-to-Date Return-14.70%29.32%
10-Day Avg. Volume4.01M1.43M
3-Month Avg. Volume4.26M1.12M
3-Month Volatility63.23%16.81%
Beta1.600.41

Profitability

Return on Equity (TTM)

FLR

105.11%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
26.79%
Q3
16.47%
Median
10.66%
Q1
8.46%
Min
-1.86%

FLR’s Return on Equity of 105.11% is exceptionally high, placing it well beyond the typical range for the Construction & Engineering industry. This demonstrates a superior ability to generate profit from shareholder investments, though it could also be inflated by high financial leverage.

GD

17.99%

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
37.11%
Q3
20.14%
Median
11.72%
Q1
6.30%
Min
-6.24%

GD’s Return on Equity of 17.99% is on par with the norm for the Aerospace & Defense industry, indicating its profitability relative to shareholder equity is typical for the sector.

FLR vs. GD: A comparison of their Return on Equity (TTM) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Aerospace & Defense industry benchmarks.

Net Profit Margin (TTM)

FLR

25.35%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
11.67%
Q3
6.13%
Median
3.82%
Q1
2.31%
Min
-2.77%

FLR’s Net Profit Margin of 25.35% is exceptionally high, placing it well beyond the typical range for the Construction & Engineering industry. This demonstrates outstanding operational efficiency and a strong competitive advantage in converting revenue into profit.

GD

8.13%

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
13.66%
Q3
8.61%
Median
6.59%
Q1
4.92%
Min
1.01%

GD’s Net Profit Margin of 8.13% is aligned with the median group of its peers in the Aerospace & Defense industry. This indicates its ability to convert revenue into profit is typical for the sector.

FLR vs. GD: A comparison of their Net Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Aerospace & Defense industry benchmarks.

Operating Profit Margin (TTM)

FLR

1.84%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
17.78%
Q3
9.61%
Median
6.19%
Q1
3.73%
Min
-1.78%

FLR’s Operating Profit Margin of 1.84% is in the lower quartile for the Construction & Engineering industry. This indicates weaker profitability from core operations, which may stem from inefficiencies or competitive pressures on pricing.

GD

10.30%

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
22.35%
Q3
12.83%
Median
9.29%
Q1
6.38%
Min
-2.15%

GD’s Operating Profit Margin of 10.30% is around the midpoint for the Aerospace & Defense industry, indicating that its efficiency in managing core business operations is typical for the sector.

FLR vs. GD: A comparison of their Operating Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Aerospace & Defense industry benchmarks.

Profitability at a Glance

SymbolFLRGD
Return on Equity (TTM)105.11%17.99%
Return on Assets (TTM)45.38%7.21%
Net Profit Margin (TTM)25.35%8.13%
Operating Profit Margin (TTM)1.84%10.30%
Gross Profit Margin (TTM)3.02%15.40%

Financial Strength

Current Ratio (MRQ)

FLR

1.62

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
2.17
Q3
1.50
Median
1.23
Q1
1.00
Min
0.65

FLR’s Current Ratio of 1.62 is in the upper quartile for the Construction & Engineering industry. This signifies a strong liquidity position, suggesting the company is well-equipped to cover its immediate liabilities compared to its peers.

GD

1.36

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
3.35
Q3
2.03
Median
1.24
Q1
1.04
Min
0.77

GD’s Current Ratio of 1.36 aligns with the median group of the Aerospace & Defense industry, indicating that its short-term liquidity is in line with its sector peers.

FLR vs. GD: A comparison of their Current Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Aerospace & Defense industry benchmarks.

Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)

FLR

0.18

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
2.37
Q3
1.24
Median
0.62
Q1
0.31
Min
0.00

Falling into the lower quartile for the Construction & Engineering industry, FLR’s Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 0.18 points to a conservative financing strategy. This results in lower financial risk but potentially limits strategic investments compared to more leveraged competitors.

GD

0.37

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
1.72
Q3
0.96
Median
0.63
Q1
0.37
Min
0.03

Falling into the lower quartile for the Aerospace & Defense industry, GD’s Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 0.37 points to a conservative financing strategy. This results in lower financial risk but potentially limits strategic investments compared to more leveraged competitors.

FLR vs. GD: A comparison of their Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Aerospace & Defense industry benchmarks.

Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)

FLR

--

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
36.37
Q3
17.88
Median
8.20
Q1
4.98
Min
-6.49

Interest Coverage Ratio data for FLR is currently unavailable.

GD

15.01

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
36.57
Q3
19.08
Median
7.25
Q1
2.65
Min
-7.63

GD’s Interest Coverage Ratio of 15.01 is positioned comfortably within the norm for the Aerospace & Defense industry, indicating a standard and healthy capacity to cover its interest payments.

FLR vs. GD: A comparison of their Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Aerospace & Defense industry benchmarks.

Financial Strength at a Glance

SymbolFLRGD
Current Ratio (MRQ)1.621.36
Quick Ratio (MRQ)1.620.83
Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)0.180.37
Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)--15.01

Growth

Revenue Growth

FLR vs. GD: A side-by-side comparison of their Revenue Growth for the MRQ (YoY), TTM (YoY), 3-Year CAGR, and 5-Year CAGR periods.

EPS Growth

FLR vs. GD: A side-by-side comparison of their EPS Growth for the MRQ (YoY), TTM (YoY), 3-Year CAGR, and 5-Year CAGR periods.

Dividend

Dividend Yield (TTM)

FLR

0.00%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
5.80%
Q3
3.33%
Median
2.22%
Q1
0.21%
Min
0.00%

FLR currently does not pay a dividend, resulting in a yield of 0%. This is a common strategy for growth-focused companies that prioritize reinvesting earnings, though it may be less typical in mature, income-oriented sectors.

GD

1.72%

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
2.72%
Q3
1.45%
Median
0.48%
Q1
0.08%
Min
0.00%

With a Dividend Yield of 1.72%, GD offers a more attractive income stream than most of its peers in the Aerospace & Defense industry, signaling a strong commitment to shareholder returns.

FLR vs. GD: A comparison of their Dividend Yield (TTM) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Aerospace & Defense industry benchmarks.

Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)

FLR

0.00%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
139.17%
Q3
74.39%
Median
51.48%
Q1
15.67%
Min
0.00%

FLR has a Dividend Payout Ratio of 0%, indicating it does not currently pay a dividend. This is a common strategy for growth-oriented companies that reinvest all profits back into the business.

GD

38.28%

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
110.40%
Q3
50.43%
Median
17.11%
Q1
0.46%
Min
0.00%

GD’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 38.28% is within the typical range for the Aerospace & Defense industry, suggesting a balanced approach between shareholder payouts and company reinvestment.

FLR vs. GD: A comparison of their Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Aerospace & Defense industry benchmarks.

Dividend at a Glance

SymbolFLRGD
Dividend Yield (TTM)0.00%1.72%
Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)0.00%38.28%

Valuation

Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)

FLR

1.65

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
41.00
Q3
26.91
Median
16.02
Q1
13.49
Min
1.65

In the lower quartile for the Construction & Engineering industry, FLR’s P/E Ratio of 1.65 suggests the stock may be undervalued compared to its peers, potentially presenting an attractive entry point for investors.

GD

22.29

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
67.20
Q3
55.74
Median
33.28
Q1
27.49
Min
15.02

In the lower quartile for the Aerospace & Defense industry, GD’s P/E Ratio of 22.29 suggests the stock may be undervalued compared to its peers, potentially presenting an attractive entry point for investors.

FLR vs. GD: A comparison of their Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Aerospace & Defense industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)

FLR

0.42

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
2.93
Q3
1.65
Median
0.71
Q1
0.45
Min
0.11

In the lower quartile for the Construction & Engineering industry, FLR’s P/S Ratio of 0.42 indicates its revenue is valued more conservatively than most of its peers. This could present a compelling opportunity if the market has overlooked its sales-generating capabilities.

GD

1.81

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
9.06
Q3
4.87
Median
2.47
Q1
1.61
Min
0.33

GD’s P/S Ratio of 1.81 aligns with the market consensus for the Aerospace & Defense industry. This suggests its valuation, based on sales, is seen as standard and is on par with its competitors.

FLR vs. GD: A comparison of their Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Aerospace & Defense industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)

FLR

1.42

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
7.96
Q3
4.06
Median
1.98
Q1
1.23
Min
0.24

FLR’s P/B Ratio of 1.42 is within the conventional range for the Construction & Engineering industry. This shows a balanced market view, where the stock’s price is neither at a significant premium nor a discount to the book value of its peers.

GD

3.32

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
14.90
Q3
8.93
Median
4.70
Q1
3.03
Min
0.83

GD’s P/B Ratio of 3.32 is within the conventional range for the Aerospace & Defense industry. This shows a balanced market view, where the stock’s price is neither at a significant premium nor a discount to the book value of its peers.

FLR vs. GD: A comparison of their Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Aerospace & Defense industry benchmarks.

Valuation at a Glance

SymbolFLRGD
Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)1.6522.29
Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)0.421.81
Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)1.423.32
Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (TTM)7.2220.64