Aptiv vs Lear
APTV 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 APTV and LEA compare
Aptiv is the larger company, worth 1.6 times as much as Lear ($9.2B against $5.8B).
On earnings, Lear is cheaper: it trades at 10.3× trailing earnings, against 41.9× for Aptiv.
Aptiv grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.3% versus 3.5% for Lear).
Lear keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.5% compared with 1.2% at Aptiv.
Lear pays a dividend yielding 2.6%; Aptiv does not pay one.
Lear scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 5 for Aptiv), 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 | APTV | LEA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $9.2B | $5.8B |
| Share price | $44.43 | $118.44 |
| Change, 1 year | −48.7% | 13.8% |
| Change, 5 years | −74.6% | −33.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.18 | 0.92 |
| Employees | 140K | 75K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 22 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 41.9× | 10.3× (better) |
| P/S | 0.5× | 0.2× (better) |
| P/B | 1.1× (better) | 1.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.1× | 5.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 13.5× | 8.3× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.73 |
| FCF yield | 7.4% | 12.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $52.66 | $170.97 |
| Margin of safety | 15.6% | 30.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.3% (better) | 3.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.3% (better) | 6.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −78.3% | 32.2% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −75.7% | 40.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −35.4% | 25.5% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 19.6% (better) | 6.9% |
| Operating margin | 5.3% (better) | 3.7% |
| Net margin | 1.2% | 2.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.7% (better) | 2.9% |
| Return on equity | 2.4% | 11.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 3.3% | 10.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.61 | 0.55 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.38 | 1.25 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 3.0× | 9.1× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.02 (better) | 1.18 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.46 | 2.79 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.6% |
| Payout ratio | – | 27.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Buyback yield | 7.8% | 9.0% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 7.8% | 11.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 101% | 108% |
| Held by insiders | 1.5% | 0.42% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $4.9M (better) | −$15.5M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.5% | 6.0% |
Go deeper
- APTV stock overview
- APTV income statement
- APTV 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.