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 WFC: 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 WFC's multiple
Needs WFC P/E.
Implied fair value · at LMT's multiple
Needs LMT P/E.
Price unavailable
Metric by metric
Where each company leads, and how wide the gap is.
Higher is better
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
Ten 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.
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY/MN · implied price per share
Five annual free-cash-flow observations are required for the filing-backed baseline.
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.
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
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
LMT vs JPM
Bank of America Corporation
LMT vs BAC
Citigroup Inc.
LMT vs C
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
LMT vs GS
Morgan Stanley
LMT vs MS
Capital One Financial Corporation
LMT vs COF
TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP
LMT vs TFC
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 can sustain 5.6% revenue growth and its 30.4% ROIC while defending margins, then hold or accumulate on weakness because the current price is below the DCF- and WFC-implied downside ranges but still supported by stronger fundamentals than WFC.
On the provided P/E-based framework, LMT’s current price of $545.91 is well above the implied price of $293.55, implying -46.2% downside. That discount/premium signal is driven by LMT’s much higher P/E multiple of 25.4x versus WFC’s 13.7x, although cross-industry comparability limits how directly this should be interpreted.
Supporting Metrics
