Cooper-Standard vs Garrett Motion
CPS 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 CPS and GTX compare
Garrett Motion is the larger company, worth 11 times as much as Cooper-Standard ($3.9B against $357M).
Cooper-Standard grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (27.9% versus 6.9% for Garrett Motion).
Garrett Motion keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.0% compared with −1.7% at Cooper-Standard.
Garrett Motion pays a dividend yielding 1.5%; Cooper-Standard does not pay one.
Garrett Motion scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 5 for Cooper-Standard), 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 | CPS | GTX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $357M | $3.9B |
| Share price | $20.07 | $20.91 |
| Change, 1 year | −48.0% | 22.4% |
| Change, 5 years | −7.9% | 199% |
| Beta (5Y) | 2.33 | 0.84 |
| Employees | 22K | 2,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 10.7× |
| P/S | 0.1× (better) | 1.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.5× | – |
| P/FCF | – | 9.9× |
| PEG | – | 0.40 |
| FCF yield | −7.9% | 10.1% (better) |
| Fair value | – | $24.84 |
| Margin of safety | – | 15.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 27.9% (better) | 6.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 3.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 15.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 24.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 7.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 12.0% | 21.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | 2.9% | – |
| Net margin | −1.7% | 10.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | −0.81% | 10.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 9.3% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Net debt / EBITDA | 10.06 | – |
| Current ratio | 1.36 (better) | 1.04 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.90 (better) | 1.63 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 9 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.5% |
| Payout ratio | – | 16.4% |
| Buyback yield | – | 6.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 7.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 64.9% | 97.8% |
| Held by insiders | 5.5% | 34.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $295K (better) | −$166M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.1% | 6.4% |
Go deeper
- CPS stock overview
- CPS income statement
- CPS valuation and score
- GTX stock overview
- GTX income statement
- GTX valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.