AutoNation vs Lithia Motors
AN 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 AN and LAD compare
AutoNation and Lithia Motors are about the same size, with market caps of $5.9B and $6.6B.
On earnings, AutoNation is cheaper: it trades at 8.6× trailing earnings, against 10.0× for Lithia Motors.
Lithia Motors grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (2.1% versus −1.8% for AutoNation).
AutoNation keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.6% compared with 1.9% at Lithia Motors.
Lithia Motors pays a dividend yielding 0.79%; AutoNation does not pay one.
Lithia Motors scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 12 for AutoNation), 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 | AN | LAD |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.9B | $6.6B |
| Share price | $179.64 | $299.72 |
| Change, 1 year | −8.6% | −6.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 45.3% | −8.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.81 | 1.02 |
| Employees | 25K | 30K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 8.6× (better) | 10.0× |
| P/S | 0.2× | 0.2× (better) |
| P/B | 2.6× | 1.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.1× | 3.5× (better) |
| P/FCF | 259× | – |
| FCF yield | 0.39% (better) | −7.7% |
| Fair value | $231.08 | $432.80 |
| Margin of safety | 22.3% | 30.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.8% | 2.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.3% | 23.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 8.9% (better) | −19.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 22.6% (better) | −10.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 31.7% (better) | 10.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 17.7% (better) | 15.2% |
| Operating margin | 4.6% (better) | 4.1% |
| Net margin | 2.6% (better) | 1.9% |
| FCF margin | 0.08% (better) | −1.3% |
| Return on equity | 30.2% (better) | 10.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 37.2% (better) | 17.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.24 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.40 | – |
| Interest coverage | 6.4× (better) | 5.6× |
| Current ratio | 0.77 | 1.00 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.77 (better) | 2.18 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (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 | 16.7% | 18.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 16.7% | 19.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 73.3% | 112% |
| Held by insiders | 28.1% | 13.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$710K | −$423K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 12.4% | 10.1% |
Go deeper
- AN stock overview
- AN income statement
- AN 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.