Asbury Automotive vs Penske Automotive
ABG and PAG 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 PAG compare
Penske Automotive is the larger company, worth 3.9 times as much as Asbury Automotive ($13.9B against $3.6B).
On earnings, Asbury Automotive is cheaper: it trades at 7.9× trailing earnings, against 15.5× for Penske Automotive.
Penske Automotive grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (1.4% versus −1.3% for Asbury Automotive).
Penske Automotive keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.8% compared with 2.7% at Asbury Automotive.
Penske Automotive pays a dividend yielding 2.7%; Asbury Automotive does not pay one.
Penske Automotive scores higher on the StockData Score (12 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 | PAG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.6B | $13.9B |
| Share price | $198.03 | $212.12 |
| Change, 1 year | −16.6% | 31.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 8.8% | 89.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.94 | 0.66 |
| Employees | 15K | 28K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 7.9× (better) | 15.5× |
| P/S | 0.2× (better) | 0.4× |
| P/B | 0.9× (better) | 2.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.2× (better) | 13.5× |
| P/FCF | – | 28.0× |
| FCF yield | – | 3.6% |
| Fair value | $252.95 | $142.78 |
| Margin of safety | 21.7% (better) | −48.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.3% | 1.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 20.3% (better) | 9.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −16.6% | −9.7% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −12.3% | −8.8% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 13.8% | 16.0% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 17.1% (better) | 16.0% |
| Operating margin | 4.2% (better) | 3.7% |
| Net margin | 2.7% | 2.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 1.5% |
| Return on equity | 11.8% | 15.5% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 7.6% | 11.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.84 | 0.40 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.91 | 1.91 (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.91 | 0.98 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.49 | 3.11 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.7% |
| Payout ratio | – | 41.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 5 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 43.9% |
| Buyback yield | 6.8% (better) | 0.48% |
| Shareholder yield | 6.8% (better) | 3.1% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 107% | 28.2% |
| Held by insiders | 18.2% | 73.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $1.7M (better) | −$832K |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.2% | 14.1% |
Go deeper
- ABG stock overview
- ABG income statement
- ABG valuation and score
- PAG stock overview
- PAG income statement
- PAG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.