Autoliv vs Lear
ALV and LEA 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 LEA compare
Autoliv is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as Lear ($8.6B against $5.8B).
On earnings, Lear is cheaper: it trades at 10.3× trailing earnings, against 13.8× for Autoliv.
Autoliv grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.9% versus 3.5% for Lear).
Autoliv keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.8% compared with 2.5% at Lear.
Both pay dividends: Autoliv yields 2.2% and Lear 2.6%.
Lear scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 20 for Autoliv), 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 | LEA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.6B | $5.8B |
| Share price | $117.54 | $118.44 |
| Change, 1 year | 1.2% | 13.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 16.0% | −33.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.99 | 0.92 |
| Employees | 113 | 75K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 20 | 22 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.8× | 10.3× (better) |
| P/S | 0.8× | 0.2× (better) |
| P/B | 3.5× | 1.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.1× | 5.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 11.4× | 8.3× (better) |
| PEG | 0.55 (better) | 0.73 |
| FCF yield | 8.8% | 12.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $132.02 | $170.97 |
| Margin of safety | 11.0% | 30.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.9% (better) | 3.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.7% (better) | 6.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −10.2% | 32.2% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −6.8% | 40.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 34.9% (better) | 25.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 19.2% (better) | 6.9% |
| Operating margin | 9.2% (better) | 3.7% |
| Net margin | 5.8% (better) | 2.5% |
| FCF margin | 6.8% (better) | 2.9% |
| Return on equity | 25.9% (better) | 11.6% |
| Return on invested capital | 17.4% (better) | 10.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.82 | 0.55 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.15 (better) | 1.25 |
| Interest coverage | 9.9× (better) | 9.1× |
| Current ratio | 1.03 | 1.18 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.95 (better) | 2.79 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.2% | 2.6% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 40.5% | 27.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 38.2% | – |
| Buyback yield | 5.2% | 9.0% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 7.4% | 11.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 68.5% | 108% |
| Held by insiders | 13.1% | 0.42% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.5M (better) | −$15.5M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.7% | 6.0% |
Go deeper
- ALV stock overview
- ALV income statement
- ALV valuation and score
- LEA stock overview
- LEA income statement
- LEA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.