Asbury Automotive vs Carvana
ABG and CVNA side by side, both in retail-auto dealers & gasoline stations. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ABG and CVNA compare
Carvana is the larger company, worth 21 times as much as Asbury Automotive ($75.2B against $3.6B).
Carvana grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (54.0% versus −1.3% for Asbury Automotive).
Carvana keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.3% compared with 2.7% at Asbury Automotive.
Carvana scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 9 for Asbury Automotive), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | ABG | CVNA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.6B | $75.2B |
| Share price | $198.03 | $68.29 |
| Change, 1 year | −16.6% | −3.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 8.8% | 14.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.94 | 3.63 |
| Employees | 15K | 23K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 7.9× | – |
| P/S | 0.2× (better) | 3.0× |
| P/B | 0.9× (better) | 18.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.2× (better) | 35.2× |
| P/FCF | – | 80.9× |
| FCF yield | – | 1.2% |
| Fair value | $252.95 | $11.46 |
| Margin of safety | 21.7% (better) | −496% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.3% | 54.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 20.3% | 29.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −16.6% | 179% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −12.3% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 13.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 17.1% | 19.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | 4.2% | 8.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 2.7% | 6.3% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 3.7% |
| Return on equity | 11.8% | 54.5% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 7.6% | 29.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.84 (better) | 1.28 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.91 | 1.14 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 5.3× |
| Current ratio | 0.91 | 3.93 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.49 | 7.56 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 6.8% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 6.8% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 107% | 67.2% |
| Held by insiders | 18.2% | 6.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $1.7M (better) | −$258M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 9 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.2% | 6.5% |
Go deeper
- ABG stock overview
- ABG income statement
- ABG valuation and score
- CVNA stock overview
- CVNA income statement
- CVNA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.