Autoliv vs BorgWarner
ALV and BWA side by side, both in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ALV and BWA compare
BorgWarner is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Autoliv ($10.9B against $8.6B).
On earnings, Autoliv is cheaper: it trades at 13.8× trailing earnings, against 22.7× for BorgWarner.
Autoliv grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.9% versus 0.40% for BorgWarner).
Autoliv keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.8% compared with 3.4% at BorgWarner.
Both pay dividends: Autoliv yields 2.2% and BorgWarner 1.3%.
Autoliv scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 13 for BorgWarner), 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 | ALV | BWA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.6B | $10.9B |
| Share price | $117.54 | $53.30 |
| Change, 1 year | 1.2% | 22.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 16.0% | 13.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.99 | 0.91 |
| Employees | 113 | 700 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 20 (better) | 13 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.8× (better) | 22.7× |
| P/S | 0.8× | 0.8× (better) |
| P/B | 3.5× | 1.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.1× (better) | 9.0× |
| P/FCF | 11.4× | 9.4× (better) |
| PEG | 0.55 | – |
| FCF yield | 8.8% | 10.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $132.02 | $45.65 |
| Margin of safety | 11.0% (better) | −16.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.9% (better) | 0.40% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.7% (better) | 7.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −10.2% | 257% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −6.8% | 273% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 34.9% (better) | −11.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 19.2% | 19.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 9.2% (better) | 5.4% |
| Net margin | 5.8% (better) | 3.4% |
| FCF margin | 6.8% | 8.1% (better) |
| Return on equity | 25.9% (better) | 8.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 17.4% (better) | 6.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.82 | 0.53 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.15 | 1.03 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 9.9× (better) | 8.7× |
| Current ratio | 1.03 | 1.41 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.95 | 3.09 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.2% (better) | 1.3% |
| Payout ratio | 40.5% | 29.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 38.2% (better) | −3.8% |
| Buyback yield | 5.2% | 6.7% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 7.4% | 7.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 68.5% | 106% |
| Held by insiders | 13.1% | 0.86% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.5M (better) | −$17.1M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.7% | 3.5% |
Go deeper
- ALV stock overview
- ALV income statement
- ALV valuation and score
- BWA stock overview
- BWA income statement
- BWA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.