Fajasy on X
Curtiss-Wright $CW is BWX Technologies’ $BWXT closest comp, and $BWXT trades below it on every measure but FCF yield. Since naval propulsion is close to half of $BWXT’s revenue, its closest comps are other Navy suppliers. Small-reactor developers like Oklo $OKLO and NuScale $SMR wouldn’t work anyway, as they lost $73.2M and $64.0M from operations in Q2 2026, leaving no EBITDA multiple to compare against. So I decided to compare $BWXT with four listed companies building or equipping the same Navy submarines and carriers: → Curtiss-Wright $CW: Pumps, valves, and turbines for the same submarines and carriers, plus reactor coolant pumps for Westinghouse’s AP1000. → Leonardo DRS $DRS: Naval power and propulsion systems, including electric drive equipment for the Columbia-class. → General Dynamics $GD: Builds the submarines through its Electric Boat unit. → Huntington Ingalls $HII: Builds the carriers and submarines at its Newport News shipyard. Here’s how they compare on 2026 estimates (P/E, EV/EBITDA, EV/sales, FCF yield): → $BWXT: 30.7x, 22.5x, 3.95x, 2.64% → $CW: 36.3x, 24.8x, 5.54x, 2.90% → $DRS: 26.9x, 18.4x, 2.48x, 2.78% → $GD: 19.7x, 13.9x, 1.68x, 5.34% → $HII: n/a, 12.3x, 0.98x, 5.28% Note: CW’s, GD’s, and HII’s EBITDA is operating income plus D&A from company guidance, since they don’t guide EBITDA. $BWXT trades above the two shipbuilders, which earn thinner margins. HII guides shipbuilding operating margins of 6.0-6.5% and GD 10.5% overall, vs. $BWXT’s 12.6% GAAP operating margin in 2025. A reasonable EV/EBITDA range for $BWXT is 16-24x, between its own end-2023 multiple and Curtiss-Wright’s today.
