Seek Returns logo

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

Updated on

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

Company Profile

SymbolFLRLMT
Company NameFluor CorporationLockheed Martin Corporation
CountryUnited StatesUnited States
GICS SectorIndustrialsIndustrials
GICS IndustryConstruction & EngineeringAerospace & Defense
Market Capitalization6.89 billion USD103.32 billion USD
ExchangeNYSENYSE
Listing DateDecember 1, 2000January 2, 1962
Security TypeCommon StockCommon Stock

Historical Performance

This chart compares the performance of FLR and LMT 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. LMT: Growth of a $10,000 investment over the past one year.

Historical Performance at a Glance

SymbolFLRLMT
5-Day Price Return-3.35%2.74%
13-Week Price Return13.64%-6.47%
26-Week Price Return-12.60%-1.33%
52-Week Price Return-11.37%-20.53%
Month-to-Date Return-24.87%5.13%
Year-to-Date Return-13.52%-8.93%
10-Day Avg. Volume7.35M1.72M
3-Month Avg. Volume3.93M1.71M
3-Month Volatility71.66%32.09%
Beta1.510.26

Profitability

Return on Equity (TTM)

FLR

105.11%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
29.61%
Q3
17.18%
Median
10.42%
Q1
8.10%
Min
-0.10%

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.

LMT

65.82%

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
43.89%
Q3
22.42%
Median
12.50%
Q1
5.21%
Min
-6.24%

LMT’s Return on Equity of 65.82% is exceptionally high, placing it well beyond the typical range for the Aerospace & Defense industry. This demonstrates a superior ability to generate profit from shareholder investments, though it could also be inflated by high financial leverage.

FLR vs. LMT: 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
11.14%
Q3
6.17%
Median
3.85%
Q1
2.40%
Min
-0.05%

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.

LMT

5.85%

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
14.54%
Q3
8.08%
Median
6.17%
Q1
2.49%
Min
-1.63%

LMT’s Net Profit Margin of 5.85% 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. LMT: 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
17.56%
Q3
9.36%
Median
5.46%
Q1
3.47%
Min
-1.93%

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.

LMT

8.29%

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
16.63%
Q3
10.38%
Median
8.29%
Q1
6.21%
Min
0.95%

LMT’s Operating Profit Margin of 8.29% 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. LMT: A comparison of their Operating Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Aerospace & Defense industry benchmarks.

Profitability at a Glance

SymbolFLRLMT
Return on Equity (TTM)105.11%65.82%
Return on Assets (TTM)45.38%7.42%
Net Profit Margin (TTM)25.35%5.85%
Operating Profit Margin (TTM)1.84%8.29%
Gross Profit Margin (TTM)3.02%8.25%

Financial Strength

Current Ratio (MRQ)

FLR

1.62

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
1.98
Q3
1.53
Median
1.24
Q1
1.05
Min
0.66

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.

LMT

0.99

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
3.09
Q3
1.98
Median
1.23
Q1
1.03
Min
0.02

LMT’s Current Ratio of 0.99 falls into the lower quartile for the Aerospace & Defense industry. This indicates a tighter liquidity situation and a more constrained capacity to handle short-term debt than many of its competitors.

FLR vs. LMT: 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
2.49
Q3
1.19
Median
0.63
Q1
0.29
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.

LMT

4.06

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
1.70
Q3
1.04
Median
0.68
Q1
0.41
Min
0.00

With a Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 4.06, LMT operates with exceptionally high leverage compared to the Aerospace & Defense industry norm. This suggests an aggressive reliance on debt financing, which can magnify returns but also significantly elevates financial risk.

FLR vs. LMT: 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
23.59
Q3
14.49
Median
8.20
Q1
5.26
Min
-6.49

Interest Coverage Ratio data for FLR is currently unavailable.

LMT

7.49

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
36.57
Q3
19.90
Median
7.04
Q1
2.40
Min
-7.63

LMT’s Interest Coverage Ratio of 7.49 is positioned comfortably within the norm for the Aerospace & Defense industry, indicating a standard and healthy capacity to cover its interest payments.

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

Financial Strength at a Glance

SymbolFLRLMT
Current Ratio (MRQ)1.620.99
Quick Ratio (MRQ)1.620.83
Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)0.184.06
Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)--7.49

Growth

Revenue Growth

FLR vs. LMT: 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. LMT: 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
6.28%
Q3
3.25%
Median
2.02%
Q1
0.23%
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.

LMT

3.03%

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
2.03%
Q3
1.22%
Median
0.43%
Q1
0.00%
Min
0.00%

LMT’s Dividend Yield of 3.03% is exceptionally high, placing it well above the typical range for the Aerospace & Defense industry. While this may seem attractive, an unusually high yield can sometimes be a warning sign, reflecting a falling stock price or market concerns about the dividend’s sustainability.

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

Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)

FLR

10.51%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
139.17%
Q3
69.47%
Median
40.99%
Q1
10.51%
Min
0.00%

FLR’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 10.51% is within the typical range for the Construction & Engineering industry, suggesting a balanced approach between shareholder payouts and company reinvestment.

LMT

73.60%

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
83.87%
Q3
49.90%
Median
16.48%
Q1
0.00%
Min
0.00%

LMT’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 73.60% is in the upper quartile for the Aerospace & Defense industry. This indicates a strong commitment to shareholder returns but also suggests that a smaller portion of earnings is retained for reinvestment compared to many peers.

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

Dividend at a Glance

SymbolFLRLMT
Dividend Yield (TTM)0.00%3.03%
Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)10.51%73.60%

Valuation

Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)

FLR

1.68

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
36.96
Q3
24.81
Median
15.45
Q1
12.51
Min
2.74

FLR’s P/E Ratio of 1.68 is below the typical range for the Construction & Engineering industry. This may indicate that the stock is potentially undervalued, or it could reflect market concerns about the company’s future prospects.

LMT

24.29

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
65.97
Q3
54.11
Median
34.53
Q1
23.66
Min
0.00

LMT’s P/E Ratio of 24.29 is within the middle range for the Aerospace & Defense industry. This suggests its valuation is in line with the sector average, representing neither a significant premium nor a discount compared to its peers.

FLR vs. LMT: 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

0.43

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
3.22
Q3
1.63
Median
0.61
Q1
0.48
Min
0.11

In the lower quartile for the Construction & Engineering industry, FLR’s P/S Ratio of 0.43 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.

LMT

1.42

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
8.07
Q3
4.49
Median
2.42
Q1
1.39
Min
0.00

LMT’s P/S Ratio of 1.42 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. LMT: 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
5.74
Q3
3.33
Median
1.49
Q1
1.20
Min
0.23

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.

LMT

20.34

Aerospace & Defense Industry

Max
13.67
Q3
7.92
Median
4.65
Q1
2.68
Min
0.82

At 20.34, LMT’s P/B Ratio is at an extreme premium to the Aerospace & Defense industry. This signifies that the market’s valuation is heavily reliant on future potential rather than its current net asset value, which can be a high-risk proposition.

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

Valuation at a Glance

SymbolFLRLMT
Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)1.6824.29
Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)0.431.42
Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)1.4220.34
Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (TTM)7.3620.49