BorgWarner vs DANA
BWA and DAN 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 BWA and DAN compare
BorgWarner is the larger company, worth 4.4 times as much as DANA ($10.9B against $2.5B).
On earnings, DANA is cheaper: it trades at 2.3× trailing earnings, against 22.7× for BorgWarner.
DANA grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.7% versus 0.40% for BorgWarner).
DANA keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.6% compared with 3.4% at BorgWarner.
Both pay dividends: BorgWarner yields 1.3% and DANA 2.0%.
DANA scores higher on the StockData Score (15 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 | BWA | DAN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.9B | $2.5B |
| Share price | $53.30 | $23.11 |
| Change, 1 year | 22.4% | 7.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 13.6% | −2.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.91 | 1.40 |
| Employees | 700 | 27K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.7× | 2.3× (better) |
| P/S | 0.8× | 0.3× (better) |
| P/B | 1.9× | 1.3× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.0× (better) | 17.0× |
| P/FCF | 9.4× (better) | 21.2× |
| FCF yield | 10.6% (better) | 4.7% |
| Fair value | $45.65 | $17.51 |
| Margin of safety | −16.7% (better) | −32.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 0.40% | 3.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.1% (better) | 1.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 257% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 273% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −11.4% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 19.6% (better) | 9.5% |
| Operating margin | 5.4% (better) | 2.7% |
| Net margin | 3.4% | 14.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.1% (better) | 1.5% |
| Return on equity | 8.2% | 71.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 6.4% (better) | 3.1% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.53 (better) | 0.70 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.03 (better) | 4.82 |
| Interest coverage | 8.7× (better) | 1.5× |
| Current ratio | 1.41 | 1.49 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.09 (better) | 2.23 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.3% | 2.0% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 29.1% | 4.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −3.8% | 32.0% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 6.7% | 22.6% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 7.9% | 24.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 106% | 99.8% |
| Held by insiders | 0.86% | 1.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$17.1M | −$298K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.5% | 4.4% |
Go deeper
- BWA stock overview
- BWA income statement
- BWA valuation and score
- DAN stock overview
- DAN income statement
- DAN valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.