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 HXL: 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 HXL's multiple
Needs HXL P/E.
Implied fair value · at LMT's multiple
Needs Annual EPS, LMT P/E.
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
16 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.
Hexcel Corporation · implied price per share
Bear
$10.98
Base
$14.95
Bull
$20.14
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.
Not enough data to score either balance sheet.
Cash excludes investments. EBITDA is an operating-income-plus-D&A proxy. Missing borrowing categories remain unavailable; select a value to inspect its inputs.
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
Owens Corning
LMT vs OC
DuPont de Nemours, Inc.
LMT vs DD
3M CO
LMT vs MMM
Celanese Corp
LMT vs CE
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 can sustain its 5.6% revenue growth and 30.4% ROIC while managing its 3.4x Debt/Equity load, then LMT looks attractive versus HXL because it is cheaper on P/E, P/S, EV/EBITDA, and EV/Revenue despite stronger operating efficiency.
LMT appears meaningfully cheaper than HXL on a relative basis, especially on earnings and sales multiples. The current price of $582.74 sits below HXL-implied price of $906.72 and within the provided historical band, but well above the DCF range, so the valuation signal is supportive but not unambiguous.
Supporting Metrics
