vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CEA Industries Inc. (BNCWW) and CURTISS WRIGHT CORP (CW), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
CURTISS WRIGHT CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($947.0M vs $7.1M, roughly 132.6× CEA Industries Inc.). CEA Industries Inc. runs the higher net margin — 3970.6% vs 14.5%, a 3956.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, CEA Industries Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (1727.8% vs 14.9%). Over the past eight quarters, CEA Industries Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (159.1% CAGR vs 15.2%).
CEA Technologies is an Australian government business enterprise that primarily supplies the Royal Australian Navy. The company was established in 1983. Its phase array radars, which are fitted to the Royal Australian Navy's fleet of warships, are regarded by Australians as the best in the world.
The Curtiss-Wright Corporation is an American manufacturer and services provider headquartered in Davidson, North Carolina, with factories and operations in and outside the United States. Created in 1929 from the consolidation of Curtiss, Wright, and various supplier companies, the company was immediately the country's largest aviation firm and built more than 142,000 aircraft engines for the U.S. military during World War II.
BNCWW vs CW — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $7.1M | $947.0M |
| Net Profit | $283.6M | $137.0M |
| Gross Margin | 29.3% | 37.5% |
| Operating Margin | — | 19.2% |
| Net Margin | 3970.6% | 14.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 1727.8% | 14.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | 38409.2% | 16.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $5.36 | $3.69 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $7.1M | $947.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.6M | $869.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $876.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $713.5K | $805.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $824.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $390.8K | $798.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.8M | $784.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $234.5K | $713.2M |
| Q4 25 | $283.6M | $137.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-5.8M | $124.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $121.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.1M | $101.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $117.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-740.4K | $111.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-470.3K | $99.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-916.6K | $76.5M |
| Q4 25 | 29.3% | 37.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 30.0% | 37.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 37.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.5% | 36.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 38.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | -18.0% | 37.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.2% | 36.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | -65.8% | 35.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | 19.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | -123.2% | 19.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 17.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -150.5% | 16.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 18.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | -191.1% | 18.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | -27.1% | 16.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | -393.9% | 14.0% |
| Q4 25 | 3970.6% | 14.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | -127.7% | 14.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 13.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -149.8% | 12.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 14.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | -189.5% | 13.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -26.7% | 12.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | -390.9% | 10.7% |
| Q4 25 | $5.36 | $3.69 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-6.94 | $3.31 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $3.19 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.33 | $2.68 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $3.09 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.94 | $2.89 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.66 | $2.58 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.34 | $1.99 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $32.5M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $957.9M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $484.9M | $2.5B |
| Total Assets | $616.5M | $5.2B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.38× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $32.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.7M | $226.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $385.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $11.3M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $11.6M | $338.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | $957.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $968.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $958.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $958.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.1B |
| Q4 25 | $484.9M | $2.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.9M | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.2M | $2.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.2M | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.9M | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $11.4M | $2.4B |
| Q4 25 | $616.5M | $5.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $19.1M | $5.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $5.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.4M | $5.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $5.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.3M | $4.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.6M | $4.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $12.7M | $4.6B |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.38× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.38× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.35× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.37× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.43× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.42× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.43× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.44× |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | — | $352.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $315.1M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 33.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | 4.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 2.57× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $553.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $352.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.7M | $192.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $136.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-745.5K | $-38.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $301.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.0M | $177.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-273.4K | $111.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-909.4K | $-45.6M |
| Q4 25 | — | $315.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $175.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $117.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-54.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $278.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $162.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $100.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-57.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | 33.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 20.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 13.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -6.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 33.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 20.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 12.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -8.1% |
| Q4 25 | — | 4.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | 2.57× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.54× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.13× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -0.38× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2.56× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.59× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.12× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -0.60× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
BNCWW
Segment breakdown not available.
CW
| Naval Power | $417.4M | 44% |
| Defense Electronics | $268.3M | 28% |
| Aerospace Industrial | $262.4M | 28% |
