BorgWarner vs Garrett Motion
BWA and GTX 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 GTX compare
BorgWarner is the larger company, worth 2.8 times as much as Garrett Motion ($10.9B against $3.9B).
On earnings, Garrett Motion is cheaper: it trades at 10.7× trailing earnings, against 22.7× for BorgWarner.
Garrett Motion grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.9% versus 0.40% for BorgWarner).
Garrett Motion keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.0% compared with 3.4% at BorgWarner.
Both pay dividends: BorgWarner yields 1.3% and Garrett Motion 1.5%.
Garrett Motion scores higher on the StockData Score (14 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 | GTX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.9B | $3.9B |
| Share price | $53.30 | $20.91 |
| Change, 1 year | 22.4% | 22.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 13.6% | 199% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.91 | 0.84 |
| Employees | 700 | 2,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.7× | 10.7× (better) |
| P/S | 0.8× (better) | 1.0× |
| P/B | 1.9× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.0× | – |
| P/FCF | 9.4× (better) | 9.9× |
| PEG | – | 0.40 |
| FCF yield | 10.6% (better) | 10.1% |
| Fair value | $45.65 | $24.84 |
| Margin of safety | −16.7% | 15.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 0.40% | 6.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.1% (better) | 3.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 257% (better) | 15.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 273% (better) | 24.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −11.4% | 7.7% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 19.6% | 21.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | 5.4% | – |
| Net margin | 3.4% | 10.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.1% | 10.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | 8.2% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 6.4% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.53 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.03 | – |
| Interest coverage | 8.7× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.41 (better) | 1.04 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.09 (better) | 1.63 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 9 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.3% | 1.5% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 29.1% | 16.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −3.8% | – |
| Buyback yield | 6.7% (better) | 6.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 7.9% (better) | 7.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 106% | 97.8% |
| Held by insiders | 0.86% | 34.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$17.1M (better) | −$166M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.5% | 6.4% |
Go deeper
- BWA stock overview
- BWA income statement
- BWA valuation and score
- GTX stock overview
- GTX income statement
- GTX valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.