vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of General Dynamics (GD) and Northrop Grumman (NOC), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
General Dynamics is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($14.4B vs $11.7B, roughly 1.2× Northrop Grumman). Northrop Grumman runs the higher net margin — 7.9% vs 12.2%, a 4.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Northrop Grumman posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (9.6% vs 7.8%). Northrop Grumman produced more free cash flow last quarter ($3.2B vs $952.0M). Over the past eight quarters, General Dynamics's revenue compounded faster (15.8% CAGR vs 7.5%).
General Dynamics Corporation (GD) is an American industrial and technology company based in Reston, Virginia. It is primarily a developer and producer of advanced military equipment of a wide variety, such as nuclear submarines, main battle tanks, and armoured fighting vehicles. It is also the manufacturer of the civilian aviation Gulfstream business jets and a provider of information technology services. The company is the 3rd largest of the top 100 contractors of the U.S.
Northrop Grumman Corporation, headquartered in West Falls Church, Virginia, is an American aerospace and defense company that designs and manufactures systems for aeronautics, defense, missions, and space. The company is the 5th largest contractor of the U.S. federal government; it receives over 2% of total spending by the federal government of the United States on contractors.
GD vs NOC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $14.4B | $11.7B |
| Net Profit | $1.1B | $1.4B |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 10.1% | 10.9% |
| Net Margin | 7.9% | 12.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 7.8% | 9.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | -0.4% | 12.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $9.94 |
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 | $14.4B | $11.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.9B | $10.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $13.0B | $10.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $12.2B | $9.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $13.3B | $10.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.7B | $10.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.0B | $10.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.7B | $10.1B |
| Q4 25 | $1.1B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $994.0M | $481.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $930.0M | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $905.0M | $940.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $799.0M | $944.0M |
| Q4 25 | 10.1% | 10.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 10.3% | 11.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.0% | 13.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.4% | 6.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 10.7% | 10.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.1% | 11.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.7% | 10.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 9.7% | 10.6% |
| Q4 25 | 7.9% | 12.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.2% | 10.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.8% | 11.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.1% | 5.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.6% | 11.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.0% | 10.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.6% | 9.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.4% | 9.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | $9.94 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $7.67 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $8.15 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.32 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $8.66 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $7.00 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $6.36 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $6.32 |
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 | $2.3B | $4.4B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $8.1B | $15.2B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $25.6B | $16.7B |
| Total Assets | $57.2B | $51.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.32× | 0.91× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $2.3B | $4.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.5B | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.5B | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $1.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.7B | $4.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.1B | $3.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.4B | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.0B | $3.1B |
| Q4 25 | $8.1B | $15.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.8B | $14.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $25.6B | $16.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $24.4B | $16.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $23.6B | $15.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $22.2B | $15.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $22.1B | $15.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | $23.0B | $14.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $22.0B | $14.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $21.4B | $14.2B |
| Q4 25 | $57.2B | $51.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $57.6B | $49.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $56.9B | $49.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $56.6B | $48.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $55.9B | $49.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $57.3B | $48.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $55.4B | $47.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $55.2B | $47.8B |
| Q4 25 | 0.32× | 0.91× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.40× | 0.96× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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 | $1.6B | $3.9B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $952.0M | $3.2B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 6.6% | 27.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 4.2% | 5.7% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.37× | 2.73× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $4.0B | $3.3B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $1.6B | $3.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.1B | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.6B | $868.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-148.0M | $-1.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.2B | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.4B | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $814.0M | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $-278.0M | $-706.0M |
| Q4 25 | $952.0M | $3.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.9B | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | $637.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-290.0M | $-1.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.8B | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | $730.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $613.0M | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $-437.0M | $-976.0M |
| Q4 25 | 6.6% | 27.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.7% | 12.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.7% | 6.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | -2.4% | -19.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 13.5% | 16.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.4% | 7.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.1% | 10.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | -4.1% | -9.6% |
| Q4 25 | 4.2% | 5.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.6% | 2.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.5% | 2.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.2% | 2.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.7% | 7.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.7% | 3.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.7% | 3.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.5% | 2.7% |
| Q4 25 | 1.37× | 2.73× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.99× | 1.42× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.58× | 0.74× | ||
| Q1 25 | -0.15× | -3.25× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.88× | 2.04× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.52× | 1.06× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.90× | 1.52× | ||
| Q1 24 | -0.35× | -0.75× |
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
GD
| Aerospace | $3.8B | 26% |
| Cost Reimbursement | $2.5B | 17% |
| Information Technology Services | $2.1B | 15% |
| Militaryvehicles | $1.2B | 9% |
| C5ISR Solutions | $1.1B | 8% |
| Aircraft Services | $965.0M | 7% |
| Weapons Systemsand Munitions | $935.0M | 7% |
| Surfaceships | $920.0M | 6% |
| Engineeringand Other Services | $360.0M | 3% |
| Repairand Other Services | $344.0M | 2% |
| Contracts Accounted For Under Percentage Of Completion | $88.0M | 1% |
NOC
| Mission Systems | $3.4B | 29% |
| Defense Systems | $2.1B | 18% |
| Services | $2.1B | 18% |
| Cost Reimbursable | $1.6B | 14% |
| Other | $867.0M | 7% |
| International Customer | $739.0M | 6% |
| Asia Pacific | $546.0M | 5% |
| All Other Geographic Region Domain | $242.0M | 2% |
| Other Customers | $14.0M | 0% |
