Compare price, profitability, solvency, and SEC-reported financials side by side—before deciding which assumptions deserve a closer look.
Decision snapshot: LMT stock price vs CE: inconclusive Relative valuation is incomplete for this pair. Review the available filing metrics before drawing a conclusion.
Quick read
Each company valued on the other's multiple, then compared with the market price.
Implied fair value · at CE's multiple
Needs CE P/E.
Implied fair value · at LMT's multiple
Needs Annual EPS is negative.
Price unavailable
Metric by metric
Where each company leads, and how wide the gap is.
Growth edge
Reported gross margin
Operating income + D&A
Lower is better
Not comparable
Lower leverage
Statements
Annual statements in reported currencies, with calculations and source evidence.
Values retain reported currencies and share bases. Select a figure to inspect its period, calculation and filing inputs. Differences require compatible units and periods.
Explore enterprise value and market valuation multiples in the valuation sections.
Trendline
Eight period-end years of reported revenue, earnings, and margins. Periods and currencies are shown with the data.
Price framework
USD market cap plus reported borrowing debt, less cash and equivalents. This EV proxy excludes investments, preferred stock and noncontrolling-interest adjustments.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Price framework
The same filing-backed model used on each company's valuation page, with company-specific inputs and calculated scenarios.
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION · implied price per share
Debt and bridge-cash inputs are required to translate enterprise value into equity value.
CELANESE CORPORATION · implied price per share
Debt and bridge-cash inputs are required to translate enterprise value into equity value.
Balance sheet health
Inspect reported liquidity and leverage alongside historical financial-health checks.
Financial strength on a 0–9 scale.
Bankruptcy-risk signal from balance sheet and earnings power.
Comparable set
Where the pair sits against the wider comparable set.
Keep comparing
Open adjacent comparisons from the same industry to pressure-test the read across multiple pairs.
BOEING CO
LMT vs BA
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORP /DE/
LMT vs NOC
TEXTRON INC
LMT vs TXT
HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES, INC.
LMT vs HII
AXON ENTERPRISE, INC.
LMT vs AXON
Howmet Aerospace Inc.
LMT vs HWM
PPG INDUSTRIES INC
LMT vs PPG
EASTMAN CHEMICAL CO
LMT vs EMN
LyondellBasell Industries N.V.
LMT vs LYB
Huntsman CORP
LMT vs HUN
Cash excludes investments. EBITDA is an operating-income-plus-D&A proxy. Missing borrowing categories remain unavailable; select a value to inspect its inputs.
LLM-powered synthesis
An explanation of the financial evidence. Check its snapshot date against the figures above.
This explanation uses an earlier data snapshot or evidence version. Review its generation date and the current figures, or refresh after signing in.
If you believe LMT deserves a premium because its profitability, growth, and balance-sheet quality are far superior to CE, then avoid treating the -71.2% implied downside as actionable because CE benchmark is distorted by CE’s negative earnings and weak credit profile.
LMT trades at $582.74 versus a CE-based implied price of $167.61, which mechanically implies -71.2% downside on this relative valuation framework. However, the gap is inflated by the fact that CE is loss-making and carries much weaker credit quality, so the comparison is not a clean like-for-like benchmark.
Supporting Metrics
