BorgWarner vs Lear
BWA 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 BWA and LEA compare
BorgWarner is the larger company, worth 2.0 times as much as Lear ($10.3B against $5.2B).
On earnings, Lear is cheaper: it trades at 9.5× trailing earnings, against 21.8× for BorgWarner.
Lear grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.5% versus 0.40% for BorgWarner).
BorgWarner keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.4% compared with 2.5% at Lear.
Both pay dividends: BorgWarner yields 1.3% and Lear 2.8%.
Lear scores higher on the StockData Score (22 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 | LEA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.3B | $5.2B |
| Share price | $51.26 | $108.57 |
| Change, 1 year | 13.4% | −0.79% |
| Change, 5 years | 11.8% | −38.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.94 | 0.92 |
| Employees | 700 | 75K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 22 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.8× | 9.5× (better) |
| P/S | 0.7× | 0.2× (better) |
| P/B | 1.8× | 1.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.6× | 4.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 8.9× | 7.5× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.67 |
| FCF yield | 11.2% | 13.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $46.56 | $175.52 |
| Margin of safety | −10.1% | 38.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 0.40% | 3.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.1% (better) | 6.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 257% (better) | 32.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 273% (better) | 40.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −11.4% | 25.5% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 19.6% (better) | 6.9% |
| Operating margin | 5.4% (better) | 3.7% |
| Net margin | 3.4% (better) | 2.5% |
| FCF margin | 8.1% (better) | 2.9% |
| Return on equity | 8.2% | 11.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 6.4% | 10.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.53 (better) | 0.55 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.03 (better) | 1.25 |
| Interest coverage | 8.7× | 9.1× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.41 (better) | 1.18 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.04 (better) | 2.75 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.3% | 2.8% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 29.1% | 27.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −3.8% | – |
| Buyback yield | 7.0% | 10.0% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 8.4% | 12.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 107% | 110% |
| Held by insiders | 0.87% | 0.42% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$16.1M (better) | −$16.1M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.0% | 7.0% |
Go deeper
- BWA stock overview
- BWA income statement
- BWA 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.