The Great Divergence: Why Europe’s Defense Sector Is Winning Where America Is Faltering

Executive Summary

The defining signal in defense this year is not the level of spending, but the terms on which that spending is being delivered. After the January 7 policy shock, the market stopped treating U.S. defense and European defense as one sector and began pricing them as two different regimes. In the U.S., the proposed $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget arrived attached to restrictions on buybacks, dividends, and executive pay, directly undermining the shareholder-return model that long supported names such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon. In Europe, by contrast, investors saw a cleaner story: rising budgets, broader political consensus, and an industrial base being re-rated as a strategic necessity rather than a discretionary line item.

That macro split matters because it changes how capital should interpret headline numbers. A larger U.S. budget would once have implied stronger earnings quality, greater cash returns, and support for valuation. Now it raises a harder question: how much of that top-line expansion can actually reach equity holders if political oversight intensifies? Europe’s macro backdrop is moving the other way. Defense spending that drifted near 1.4–1.5% of GDP in the post-Cold War era has been reset by the war in Ukraine, and MoatPeak estimates the region has already moved from €260 billion in 2022 to €381 billion in 2025. The June 2025 NATO target of 5% of GDP by 2035 extends that runway and gives the market a rare thing: visibility.

The heart of the thematic case is that Europe now offers structural growth while the U.S. offers politically discounted quality. Rheinmetall is the cleanest symbol of that transition. Operationally, it has much of what investors want: 20% revenue growth in the first nine months of 2025, a €64 billion backlog, and an ambition to grow revenue fivefold to €50 billion by 2030. But this is also where MoatPeak’s framework becomes useful. The right company can still be the wrong stock when expectations become too heroic. At 100.4x trailing earnings and 55.0x EV/EBITDA, Rheinmetall is priced for near-perfect execution, which is why the more interesting opportunity may lie in dispersion across the value chain rather than simply chasing the obvious winner.

The risk map is wider than a simple U.S.-versus-Europe trade. Europe’s rearmament could be slowed by elections in Germany or France if fiscal conservatives regain control of the agenda. A frozen conflict in Ukraine would likely compress the urgency premium currently embedded in the sector. And in the U.S., the political environment could deteriorate further, accelerating institutional exits from the prime contractors. Yet the overlooked positive risk is the Arctic. As climate access, shipping lanes, and strategic chokepoints become more contested, the Arctic is emerging as a regime-agnostic demand engine for surveillance, missile defense, naval systems, and fifth-generation air power.

The portfolio implication is to invest in structure, not the cycle. Europe deserves strategic attention because the spending regime has changed, but entries matter and rich valuations should be respected. U.S. primes deserve tactical attention because politics, not franchise quality, is driving much of the dislocation. A staged approach makes the most sense: add Europe on correction, accumulate U.S. quality on fear, and keep a dedicated Arctic sleeve through names such as Saab, Kongsberg, or LMT-linked capability providers. That is the cleaner way to capture the divergence while keeping dry powder for the next policy shock.

‍