Asbury Automotive vs Camping World
ABG and CWH 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 CWH compare
Asbury Automotive is the larger company, worth 7.9 times as much as Camping World ($3.5B against $448M).
Asbury Automotive grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−1.3% versus −5.5% for Camping World).
Asbury Automotive keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.7% compared with −4.2% at Camping World.
Camping World pays a dividend yielding 2.9%; Asbury Automotive does not pay one.
Asbury Automotive scores higher on the StockData Score (9 against 5 for Camping World), 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 | CWH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.5B | $448M |
| Share price | $197.17 | $4.34 |
| Change, 1 year | −12.3% | −61.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 21.0% | −89.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.90 | 1.60 |
| Employees | 15K | 362 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 7.9× | – |
| P/S | 0.2× | 0.1× (better) |
| P/B | 0.9× (better) | 8.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.1× | – |
| Fair value | $259.98 | $11.90 |
| Margin of safety | 24.2% | 63.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.3% (better) | −5.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 20.3% (better) | 3.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −16.6% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −12.3% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 13.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 17.1% | 28.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | 4.2% (better) | −3.5% |
| Net margin | 2.7% (better) | −4.2% |
| Return on equity | 11.8% (better) | −146% |
| Return on invested capital | 7.6% (better) | −12.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.84 (better) | 28.02 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.91 | – |
| Current ratio | 0.91 | 1.24 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.49 (better) | 1.34 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 2 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.9% |
| Buyback yield | 6.8% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 6.8% (better) | 2.9% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 107% | 62.2% |
| Held by insiders | 18.2% | 42.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $1.9M | – |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.9% | 18.3% |
Go deeper
- ABG stock overview
- ABG income statement
- ABG valuation and score
- CWH stock overview
- CWH income statement
- CWH valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.