Corning Incorporated (GLW) scored on five pillars from its reported financial statements, and ranked against 260 Technology companies.
Corning Incorporated (GLW) scores 5.3 out of 10 as of , computed from its reported financial statements. That reads as mixed quality. The reading rests on solvency, and growth is what holds it back.
Data provided by Twelve Data. Scores are computed by Lemma Analysis from reported financials.
We cannot judge Corning Incorporated yet, because fewer than five years had both a return on capital and a cost of capital we could measure. This is not a “no”.
Quantitative signs of a moat, read from the filed statements. This is not a judgement of where it comes from (brand, network effects, switching costs). How Lemma measures a moat →
Corning Incorporated (GLW) has a Lemma Quality Score of 5.3 out of 10 as of October 17, 2026, which reads as mixed quality. A mixed reading means the strengths and weaknesses roughly cancel out, and the case for the business depends on which pillars you care about most. Five pillars feed it, and every one of them is computed from what the company reported rather than from its share price.
Set against 260 Technology companies, Corning Incorporated lands at the 37th percentile, just below the middle of the group. The median across the group is 5.9, and the top quarter begins at 6.7, so Corning Incorporated is below the typical company here.
Corning Incorporated’s profitability score is 4.6 out of 10 (average). Against a median of 4.6 among 256 Technology companies, that is in line with the group and the 50th percentile. Middling returns are common and not a flaw in themselves, though they leave less slack when costs rise or demand softens.
Corning Incorporated’s solvency score is 7.3 out of 10 (strong). Against a median of 8.0 among 194 Technology companies, that is below the group and the 44th percentile. An average solvency reading suggests debt is present but manageable, the normal state for a company that borrows to fund its operations.
Corning Incorporated’s growth score is 3.9 out of 10 (weak). Against a median of 6.4 among 207 Technology companies, that is well below the group and the 24th percentile. When growth is this low the question is whether it is a pause or a trend, and the history behind the filings is the place to look.
On efficiency, Corning Incorporated scores 5.7, an average reading. Its peers have a median of 7.1 across 240 Technology companies, which places it below them, at the 22nd percentile. An average efficiency reading suggests the business turns its assets and earnings into cash at roughly the rate its sector does.
On predictability, Corning Incorporated scores 5.1, an average reading. Its peers have a median of 4.7 across 258 Technology companies, which places it in line with them, at the 56th percentile. Middling predictability suggests some volatility in the record, enough to read the other pillars with a little caution.
The profile is uneven. Solvency leads at 7.3 while growth trails at 3.9, a gap of 3.4 points, so the overall averages a clear strength against a clear soft spot. A solvency lead means the balance sheet is the company’s strongest asset, a cushion that buys time when trading gets harder. A growth shortfall often comes with size or a maturing market, and is less of a concern if the other pillars are strong.
Of everything that could lift Corning Incorporated’s score, growth matters most. Bringing it up to the 6.4 median of Technology companies would take the overall from 5.3 to roughly 5.8. All five pillars could be scored, so the overall uses the full set of weights out of 100: profitability 25, solvency 20, growth 20, efficiency 15, predictability 20.
These are the Technology companies closest to Corning Incorporated in market value. Each has its own page scored on the same five pillars, so the comparison is like for like.
How much profit the company generates from its capital and sales.
The company’s ability to service debt and meet its obligations.
How fast revenue, earnings and cash flow are compounding.
How well assets and earnings convert into cash and output.
How stable and consistent results have been over time.
Each metric is scored from 0 to 10 against sector-aware benchmarks, where higher is better. Metrics roll up into five pillars, and the pillars combine into the overall score using the weights shown. Sector-sensitive metrics are judged relative to peers in the same sector.
This score is a systematic, backward-looking read of reported fundamentals. It does not judge valuation, management quality, competitive moat, or future prospects, and can be distorted by one-off items or unusual accounting. Treat it as a starting point, not a recommendation.
Educational only. Not investment advice.
On this reading Corning Incorporated scores 5.3 out of 10, which reads as mixed quality. Its strongest pillar is solvency, its weakest is growth. Quality is not the same as a good investment: the score says nothing about the price you would pay.
Corning Incorporated ranks at the 37th percentile of the 260 Technology companies Lemma publishes a score for. The median there is 5.9 and the top quarter starts at 6.7, against Corning Incorporated’s 5.3.
Five pillars, each scored from 0 to 10 against sector-aware benchmarks and then weighted into one overall reading: profitability, solvency, growth, efficiency and predictability. Everything comes from reported financials, and nothing comes from price, sentiment or forecasts.
This page last changed on October 17, 2026. The score moves with the financial statements, so the page changes when a new filing moves the reading rather than on a schedule. Live figures for GLW are in the app.
No. Quality and valuation are separate questions, and a good business at the wrong price is still a bad purchase. Score the business here, then price it with a DCF you control.
Inside Lemma Analysis the same five pillars run on every company we cover, with the metrics behind each one, current fundamentals, a DCF you control and a watchlist that tells you when the price catches up.
Free to start · No credit card