vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CURTISS WRIGHT CORP (CW) and Leonardo DRS, Inc. (DRS), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Leonardo DRS, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.1B vs $947.0M, roughly 1.1× CURTISS WRIGHT CORP). CURTISS WRIGHT CORP runs the higher net margin — 14.5% vs 9.6%, a 4.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, CURTISS WRIGHT CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (14.9% vs 8.1%). Leonardo DRS, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($376.0M vs $315.1M). Over the past eight quarters, Leonardo DRS, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (24.1% CAGR vs 15.2%).
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.
Leonardo DRS, Inc. is a United States–based defense contractor. Originally founded as DRS Technologies, Inc. and traded on the NYSE, it was acquired by Leonardo’s predecessor Finmeccanica in 2008. Leonardo DRS provides advanced defense technologies and systems primarily to the U.S. military.
CW vs DRS — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $947.0M | $1.1B |
| Net Profit | $137.0M | $102.0M |
| Gross Margin | 37.5% | 25.4% |
| Operating Margin | 19.2% | 11.9% |
| Net Margin | 14.5% | 9.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 14.9% | 8.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | 16.2% | 14.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $3.69 | $0.38 |
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 | $947.0M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $869.2M | $960.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $876.6M | $829.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $805.6M | $799.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $824.3M | $981.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $798.9M | $812.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $784.8M | $753.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $713.2M | $688.0M |
| Q4 25 | $137.0M | $102.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $124.8M | $72.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $121.1M | $54.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $101.3M | $50.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $117.9M | $89.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $111.2M | $57.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $99.5M | $38.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $76.5M | $29.0M |
| Q4 25 | 37.5% | 25.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 37.7% | 23.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 37.2% | 23.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 36.3% | 22.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 38.5% | 24.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 37.3% | 22.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 36.2% | 22.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 35.6% | 22.2% |
| Q4 25 | 19.2% | 11.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 19.1% | 9.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.8% | 8.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.0% | 7.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 18.8% | 12.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 18.1% | 9.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 16.4% | 7.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 14.0% | 6.3% |
| Q4 25 | 14.5% | 9.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.4% | 7.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.8% | 6.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 12.6% | 6.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.3% | 9.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.9% | 7.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.7% | 5.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.7% | 4.2% |
| Q4 25 | $3.69 | $0.38 | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.31 | $0.26 | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.19 | $0.20 | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.68 | $0.19 | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.09 | $0.34 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.89 | $0.21 | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.58 | $0.14 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.99 | $0.11 |
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 | — | $647.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $957.9M | $321.0M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.5B | $2.7B |
| Total Assets | $5.2B | $4.5B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.38× | 0.12× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $647.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $309.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $278.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $226.5M | $380.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $385.0M | $598.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $198.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $149.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $338.0M | $160.0M |
| Q4 25 | $957.9M | $321.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $968.6M | $326.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $958.4M | $331.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $958.6M | $335.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.0B | $340.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.0B | $345.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | $351.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.1B | $356.0M |
| Q4 25 | $2.5B | $2.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.5B | $2.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.7B | $2.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.6B | $2.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.4B | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.5B | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.5B | $2.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.4B | $2.4B |
| Q4 25 | $5.2B | $4.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.1B | $4.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.2B | $4.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.0B | $4.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.0B | $4.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.9B | $3.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.7B | $3.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.6B | $3.8B |
| Q4 25 | 0.38× | 0.12× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.38× | 0.12× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.35× | 0.13× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.37× | 0.13× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.43× | 0.13× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.42× | 0.14× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.43× | 0.15× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.44× | 0.15× |
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 | $425.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $315.1M | $376.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 33.3% | 35.5% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 4.0% | 4.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 2.57× | 4.17× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $553.7M | $227.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $352.7M | $425.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $192.8M | $107.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $136.6M | $-28.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-38.8M | $-138.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $301.3M | $443.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $177.3M | $59.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $111.3M | $34.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-45.6M | $-265.0M |
| Q4 25 | $315.1M | $376.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $175.9M | $77.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $117.2M | $-56.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-54.5M | $-170.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $278.0M | $414.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $162.7M | $47.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $100.3M | $0 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-57.7M | $-275.0M |
| Q4 25 | 33.3% | 35.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.2% | 8.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.4% | -6.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -6.8% | -21.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 33.7% | 42.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 20.4% | 5.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.8% | 0.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | -8.1% | -40.0% |
| Q4 25 | 4.0% | 4.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.9% | 3.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.2% | 3.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.0% | 4.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.8% | 3.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.8% | 1.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.4% | 4.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.7% | 1.5% |
| Q4 25 | 2.57× | 4.17× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.54× | 1.49× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.13× | -0.52× | ||
| Q1 25 | -0.38× | -2.76× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.56× | 4.98× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.59× | 1.04× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.12× | 0.89× | ||
| Q1 24 | -0.60× | -9.14× |
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
CW
| Naval Power | $417.4M | 44% |
| Defense Electronics | $268.3M | 28% |
| Aerospace Industrial | $262.4M | 28% |
DRS
Segment breakdown not available.
