BorgWarner vs Dauch
BWA and DCH 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 DCH compare
BorgWarner is the larger company, worth 9.6 times as much as Dauch ($10.9B against $1.1B).
Dauch grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (41.0% versus 0.40% for BorgWarner).
BorgWarner keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.4% compared with −2.0% at Dauch.
BorgWarner pays a dividend yielding 1.3%; Dauch does not pay one.
BorgWarner scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 7 for Dauch), 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 | DCH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.9B | $1.1B |
| Share price | $53.30 | $4.78 |
| Change, 1 year | 22.4% | −28.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 13.6% | −51.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.91 | 1.69 |
| Employees | 700 | 18K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.7× | – |
| P/S | 0.8× | 0.1× (better) |
| P/B | 1.9× | 0.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.0× | 7.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 9.4× | – |
| FCF yield | 10.6% (better) | −2.2% |
| Fair value | $45.65 | $7.01 |
| Margin of safety | −16.7% | 31.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 0.40% | 41.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.1% (better) | 4.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 257% (better) | −487% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 273% (better) | −406% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −11.4% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 19.6% (better) | 10.9% |
| Operating margin | 5.4% (better) | 0.98% |
| Net margin | 3.4% (better) | −2.0% |
| FCF margin | 8.1% (better) | −0.30% |
| Return on equity | 8.2% (better) | −15.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 6.4% (better) | 1.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.53 (better) | 3.39 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.03 (better) | 5.96 |
| Interest coverage | 8.7× (better) | 0.3× |
| Current ratio | 1.41 (better) | 1.40 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.09 (better) | 0.91 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.3% | – |
| Payout ratio | 29.1% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −3.8% | – |
| Buyback yield | 6.7% (better) | 0.73% |
| Shareholder yield | 7.9% (better) | 0.73% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 106% | 101% |
| Held by insiders | 0.86% | 4.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$17.1M | $182K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.5% | 8.2% |
Go deeper
- BWA stock overview
- BWA income statement
- BWA valuation and score
- DCH stock overview
- DCH income statement
- DCH valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.