GE Aerospace vs RTX: defense engine stocks compared
GE Aerospace and RTX both sell into military engines and missiles, but GE Aerospace is almost entirely a propulsion company while RTX splits its defense revenue across missiles, air defense, mission-autonomy software, and its own jet-engine business.
One propulsion company against a three-segment defense prime
GE Aerospace builds commercial and military jet engines, including the F110, F404/F414, T700, and T901 defense engine lines, and it develops engines in partnership with other manufacturers, including the GEK800 turbofan program with Kratos Defense.
RTX combines three formerly separate defense and aerospace businesses under one reporting structure: Raytheon missiles and defense systems, Collins Aerospace avionics and mission systems, and Pratt & Whitney propulsion. That structure matters for this comparison, because it means RTX is both a missile prime and, through Pratt & Whitney, a direct jet-engine competitor to GE Aerospace, inside the same ticker.
Company Snapshot
GE Aerospace became a standalone public company after General Electric's 2024 breakup into separate aerospace, healthcare, and energy businesses. RTX was formed from the 2020 merger of Raytheon and United Technologies, which brought Pratt & Whitney and Collins Aerospace together with Raytheon's missile and radar business. Both are large, liquid, NYSE-listed names, and both report defense revenue as one segment inside a larger, partly commercial business.
| Attribute | GE Aerospace | RTX |
|---|---|---|
| Ticker and exchange | GE, NYSE | RTX, NYSE |
| Defense-relevant segment | Defense & Propulsion Technologies | Raytheon (missiles, air defense); Collins Aerospace (mission-autonomy software); Pratt & Whitney (propulsion) |
| Core unmanned/autonomy angle | Engine-development partnerships, such as the GEK800 turbofan with Kratos Defense, rather than an aircraft or software product of its own | Collins Aerospace was named one of the qualified mission-autonomy software vendors for the collaborative combat aircraft program |
| Named military engine programs | F110, F404/F414, T700, T901 | F135 (Pratt & Whitney), the primary engine for the F-35 program |
| Recent disclosed defense results | Defense & Propulsion Technologies revenue grew 19% year over year in the first quarter of 2026, with orders up 67% | RTX reported a record $268 billion backlog, with $109 billion of that inside the defense-heavy Raytheon segment as of the first quarter |
Two different investment theses under one label
Grouping GE Aerospace and RTX together as aerospace and defense stocks obscures a structural difference a researcher should separate before going further. GE Aerospace's defense exposure runs almost entirely through engines: fighter, helicopter, and turboshaft powerplants, plus a smaller commercial aftermarket-services business that carries a large share of the company's profit because servicing an installed engine fleet is typically more margin-rich than selling a new one.
RTX's defense exposure is split three ways, and each piece answers a different question. The Raytheon segment tracks munitions-stockpile replenishment and air-defense procurement, driven by interceptor families such as Standard Missile-3 and Patriot. Collins Aerospace's autonomy software is a newer, developmental bet on the collaborative combat aircraft program. Pratt & Whitney is the piece that actually competes head-to-head with GE Aerospace, through military engines including the F135 that powers the F-35 program.
The information-gain point for a researcher comparing the two tickers is that GE Aerospace versus RTX is really two separate comparisons stacked on top of each other: an engine-to-engine comparison, where the two companies are genuine competitors, and a missile-and-autonomy comparison, where GE Aerospace has no equivalent business at all. Reading the two as a single competitive matchup skips that distinction.
What the disclosed contract and revenue data actually shows
GE Aerospace's Defense & Propulsion Technologies segment posted 19% year-over-year revenue growth and 67% order growth in the first quarter of 2026, and the company's own guidance points to mid-to-high single-digit adjusted revenue growth for the segment across 2026. Those are the company's own disclosed figures, not analyst estimates, and they describe an engine business that is currently growing faster on a percentage basis than its overall size might suggest.
RTX's more recent disclosures center on its interceptor and missile lines rather than a segment-wide growth rate. The company reported solid fourth-quarter bookings of $10.3 billion and a record backlog of $268 billion, with $109 billion of that inside the Raytheon segment as of the first quarter. In August 2026, the Department of War signed a seven-year framework agreement with RTX and Boeing to expand production of SM-3 Block IB and Block IIA components, and the Missile Defense Agency separately awarded RTX's Raytheon business a $745 million contract for SM-3 IIA interceptor production and sustainment. A framework agreement sets terms for future orders. Only the funded contract is money the company can actually recognize against, and that distinction should be checked in RTX's own newsroom release before either figure goes into a thesis.
Trade press has also reported a $22.9 billion award to expand Tomahawk cruise-missile production, but no primary Department of War or RTX release confirming the contract vehicle, whether a multi-year procurement, an IDIQ ceiling, or a specific funded lot, was available at the time this comparison was written. A reported headline dollar figure in wire coverage is not the same statement as an itemized contract, and it should be verified against war.gov or RTX's own newsroom before being treated as obligated money.
What would change this comparison
If Collins Aerospace's mission-autonomy software is adopted across more than one collaborative combat aircraft airframe, that would give RTX a durable, cross-program software position closer in kind to how GE Aerospace's engines already sit inside multiple airframes built by other manufacturers. Right now that adoption is unconfirmed beyond the initial vendor qualification, and it is worth tracking on its own rather than assuming it follows automatically from the qualification announcement.
On the GE Aerospace side, the clearest thing that would change the read is whether the GEK800 turbofan partnership with Kratos Defense converts from a joint-development program into a funded production engine. A development partnership and a production order are different facts, and only the second one turns the collaborative combat aircraft program into a disclosed revenue driver for GE Aerospace rather than a name mentioned in a partner's press release.
How to Use This Comparison
Neither GE Aerospace nor RTX is a pure drone or unmanned-systems stock, and both should be sized as a partial exposure to a much larger commercial and defense business rather than as direct alternatives to a pure-play drone maker. For the wider vendor pool competing for the collaborative combat aircraft autonomy contract, see the collaborative combat aircraft research page. For the interceptor and missile side of RTX's business, cross-check the segment tables in the company's own annual filing on SEC EDGAR rather than relying on a blended headline number.
A researcher building a defense-engine thesis specifically should also check Kratos Defense's own disclosures on the GEK800 partnership, since a joint-development program is reported by both partners and the two companies do not always frame the same milestone the same way. Kratos separately develops the Valkyrie jet-powered unmanned aircraft, which makes it a useful third data point: it sits downstream of both GE Aerospace, as an engine-development partner, and RTX, as a company whose collaborative combat aircraft autonomy software could in principle run on a Kratos-built airframe. Reading GE Aerospace and RTX side by side with a named platform integrator, rather than only against each other, keeps the propulsion, missile, and autonomy layers from blurring into one undifferentiated defense-stock thesis.
Segment-level disclosure is the recurring check throughout this comparison, and it applies in both directions. GE Aerospace's own quarterly filings separate commercial engine revenue, defense engine revenue, and services revenue, and the aftermarket-services share should be confirmed before reading a defense headline as the reason the stock moved. RTX's filings separate Raytheon, Collins Aerospace, and Pratt & Whitney, and a single quarter's blended revenue number can mask a strong quarter in one segment and a weak one in another. Neither company's stated forward guidance is a forecast this comparison endorses; it is a disclosed figure to weigh against the next quarter's actual segment results.
Drones and UAS FAQs
Is GE Aerospace a better defense stock than RTX?
Neither is purely a defense stock. GE Aerospace's defense exposure sits inside a Defense & Propulsion Technologies segment that recently grew faster on a percentage basis, 19% revenue growth and 67% order growth in the first quarter of 2026 by the company's own disclosure, while RTX carries a larger, more diversified defense business across missiles, air defense, and mission-autonomy software, with a reported $268 billion backlog. Which one fits a given research thesis depends on whether the goal is propulsion exposure or a broader mix of interceptors, radar, and autonomy software.
Do GE Aerospace and RTX compete directly?
Yes, through jet engines. RTX's Pratt & Whitney business, including the F135 engine that powers the F-35 program, competes directly with GE Aerospace's fighter and helicopter engine lines, such as the F110 and T700. Outside of engines, the two companies mostly do not overlap: RTX's missile and interceptor business and its Collins Aerospace mission-autonomy software have no GE Aerospace equivalent.
What is the GEK800 engine?
The GEK800 is a turbofan engine GE Aerospace is developing in partnership with Kratos Defense, disclosed as one of GE Aerospace's named defense engine programs. As of this comparison it is a joint-development program, not a confirmed production contract, so its revenue contribution to either company should be tracked as it moves from development toward a funded production order.
Is RTX's missile business connected to its drone or autonomy exposure?
No. RTX's Standard Missile, Patriot, NASAMS, and Tomahawk programs sit inside the Raytheon segment and track munitions-stockpile replenishment and air-defense procurement, a separate business from the Collins Aerospace mission-autonomy software qualified for the collaborative combat aircraft program. The two segments should not be read as one story just because they report under the same ticker.
Which company has more direct exposure to collaborative combat aircraft?
Collins Aerospace, an RTX business, was named one of the qualified mission-autonomy software vendors for the program, giving RTX a direct, disclosed role. GE Aerospace's connection is indirect, through its GEK800 engine-development partnership with Kratos Defense, a company that separately develops jet-powered unmanned aircraft under its own collaborative-combat-aircraft-adjacent programs.