Asbury Automotive vs Lithia Motors
ABG and LAD 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 LAD compare
Lithia Motors is the larger company, worth 1.9 times as much as Asbury Automotive ($6.6B against $3.6B).
On earnings, Asbury Automotive is cheaper: it trades at 7.9× trailing earnings, against 10.0× for Lithia Motors.
Lithia Motors grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (2.1% versus −1.3% for Asbury Automotive).
Asbury Automotive keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.7% compared with 1.9% at Lithia Motors.
Lithia Motors pays a dividend yielding 0.79%; Asbury Automotive does not pay one.
Lithia Motors scores higher on the StockData Score (14 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 | LAD |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.6B | $6.6B |
| Share price | $198.03 | $299.72 |
| Change, 1 year | −16.6% | −6.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 8.8% | −8.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.94 | 1.02 |
| Employees | 15K | 30K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 2 |
| Health score | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 7.9× (better) | 10.0× |
| P/S | 0.2× | 0.2× (better) |
| P/B | 0.9× (better) | 1.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.2× | 3.5× (better) |
| FCF yield | – | −7.7% |
| Fair value | $252.95 | $432.80 |
| Margin of safety | 21.7% | 30.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.3% | 2.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 20.3% | 23.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −16.6% (better) | −19.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −12.3% | −10.1% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 13.8% (better) | 10.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 17.1% (better) | 15.2% |
| Operating margin | 4.2% (better) | 4.1% |
| Net margin | 2.7% (better) | 1.9% |
| FCF margin | – | −1.3% |
| Return on equity | 11.8% (better) | 10.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 7.6% | 17.6% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.84 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.91 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 5.6× |
| Current ratio | 0.91 | 1.00 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.49 (better) | 2.18 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.79% |
| Payout ratio | – | 7.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 11 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 12.3% |
| Buyback yield | 6.8% | 18.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 6.8% | 19.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 107% | 112% |
| Held by insiders | 18.2% | 13.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $1.7M (better) | −$423K |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.2% | 10.1% |
Go deeper
- ABG stock overview
- ABG income statement
- ABG valuation and score
- LAD stock overview
- LAD income statement
- LAD valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.