Asbury Automotive vs Murphy USA
ABG and MUSA 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 MUSA compare
Murphy USA is the larger company, worth 2.8 times as much as Asbury Automotive ($9.8B against $3.6B).
On earnings, Asbury Automotive is cheaper: it trades at 7.9× trailing earnings, against 15.0× for Murphy USA.
Murphy USA grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (20.2% versus −1.3% for Asbury Automotive).
Murphy USA keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.9% compared with 2.7% at Asbury Automotive.
Murphy USA pays a dividend yielding 0.48%; Asbury Automotive does not pay one.
Murphy USA scores higher on the StockData Score (18 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 | MUSA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.6B | $9.8B |
| Share price | $198.03 | $534.95 |
| Change, 1 year | −16.6% | 36.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 8.8% | 209% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.94 | 0.31 |
| Employees | 15K | 17K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 7.9× (better) | 15.0× |
| P/S | 0.2× (better) | 0.4× |
| P/B | 0.9× (better) | 12.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.2× (better) | 9.3× |
| P/FCF | – | 14.7× |
| FCF yield | – | 6.8% |
| Fair value | $252.95 | $494.52 |
| Margin of safety | 21.7% (better) | −8.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.3% | 20.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 20.3% (better) | 11.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −16.6% | 40.8% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −12.3% | 50.5% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 13.8% (better) | 13.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 17.1% | – |
| Operating margin | 4.2% (better) | 4.2% |
| Net margin | 2.7% | 2.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 2.9% |
| Return on equity | 11.8% | 99.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 7.6% | 27.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.84 (better) | 2.76 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.91 | 1.57 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 8.5× |
| Current ratio | 0.91 (better) | 0.87 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.49 | 7.68 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.48% |
| Payout ratio | – | 7.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 5 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 53.8% |
| Buyback yield | 6.8% (better) | 3.8% |
| Shareholder yield | 6.8% (better) | 4.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 107% | 83.5% |
| Held by insiders | 18.2% | 6.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $1.7M (better) | −$53.1M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.2% | 5.2% |
Go deeper
- ABG stock overview
- ABG income statement
- ABG valuation and score
- MUSA stock overview
- MUSA income statement
- MUSA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.