GE Aerospace and Lockheed Martin offer different ways to invest in aerospace: GE is tied more closely to commercial aviation and engine services, while Lockheed depends primarily on defense programs funded by the U.S. The comparison favors GE for investors prioritizing faster growth and cash generation, while Lockheed remains the steadier choice for portfolios seeking long-term government-backed demand.
GE Aerospace reported 2025 revenue of $45. 9 billion, up 18% from the prior year, with $10 billion in profit and $7. 7 billion in free cash flow. Its commercial engine and services business accounted for about 73% of revenue, and services represented 75% of that segment’s sales.
The company’s installed base supports that recurring revenue model.
Lockheed Martin is larger, with 2025 sales of about $75 billion, but its growth is more closely linked to government procurement. Government supplied 72% of its sales, while the F-35 program accounted for 27% of consolidated revenue. That concentration provides visibility through multiyear contracts but leaves the company exposed to budget delays, changing procurement priorities, supplier performance and program-specific execution risks.
Lockheed’s second-quarter 2026 results strengthened the case for its stability. Sales rose 11% year over year to $20. 1 billion, net earnings reached $1. 8 billion, and free cash flow improved to $2. 9 billion from negative $150 million a year earlier. The company added $65 billion of new orders, lifting its backlog to a record $230 billion, including a $35 billion multiyear contract to produce THAAD interceptors. Management raised its full-year outlook and projected free cash flow above $7 billion.
GE’s opportunity is linked to continued aircraft utilization, commercial engine deliveries and high-margin maintenance work. Its risks include production constraints, reliance on aircraft manufacturers’ delivery schedules, competition from other engine suppliers and the possibility that weaker passenger demand could slow new equipment and service activity. Lockheed faces a different set of risks: government funding decisions, dependence on major programs such as the F-35, complex supply chains and pressure to control costs on technologically demanding contracts.
The valuation trade-off is central to the decision. Lockheed trades at a lower earnings and sales valuation than GE Aerospace, reflecting its more mature growth profile and government concentration. GE commands a premium because its 2025 results showed faster revenue growth, expanding services activity and substantial free cash flow. On the verified operating evidence, GE is the more compelling choice for growth-oriented investors, while Lockheed’s record backlog and improved cash generation make it a stronger fit for investors who value defense visibility and income-oriented durability.