Group 1 Automotive vs Lithia Motors
GPI and LAD side by side, both in retail-auto dealers & gasoline stations. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How GPI and LAD compare
Lithia Motors is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as Group 1 Automotive ($6.6B against $3.1B).
On earnings, Group 1 Automotive is cheaper: it trades at 8.3× trailing earnings, against 10.0× for Lithia Motors.
Lithia Motors grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (2.1% versus −3.4% for Group 1 Automotive).
Lithia Motors keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 1.9% compared with 1.7% at Group 1 Automotive.
Both pay dividends: Group 1 Automotive yields 0.82% and Lithia Motors 0.79%.
Lithia Motors scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 10 for Group 1 Automotive), 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 | GPI | LAD |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.1B | $6.6B |
| Share price | $260.80 | $299.72 |
| Change, 1 year | −35.5% | −6.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 32.4% | −8.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.75 | 1.02 |
| Employees | 20K | 30K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 8.3× (better) | 10.0× |
| P/S | 0.1× (better) | 0.2× |
| P/B | 1.0× (better) | 1.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.8× | 3.5× (better) |
| P/FCF | 13.7× | – |
| FCF yield | 7.3% (better) | −7.7% |
| Fair value | $286.98 | $432.80 |
| Margin of safety | 9.1% | 30.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −3.4% | 2.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 16.3% | 23.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 0.96% (better) | −19.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 10.6% (better) | −10.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 10.2% | 10.6% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 15.9% (better) | 15.2% |
| Operating margin | 3.6% | 4.1% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.7% | 1.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 1.0% (better) | −1.3% |
| Return on equity | 12.4% (better) | 10.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 9.5% | 17.6% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.27 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.82 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 5.6× |
| Current ratio | 1.32 (better) | 1.00 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.24 (better) | 2.18 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.82% (better) | 0.79% |
| Payout ratio | 6.8% | 7.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 | 11 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 27.2% (better) | 12.3% |
| Buyback yield | 12.1% | 18.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 13.0% | 19.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 100% | 112% |
| Held by insiders | 18.0% | 13.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $187M (better) | −$423K |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 14.8% | 10.1% |
Go deeper
- GPI stock overview
- GPI income statement
- GPI valuation and score
- LAD stock overview
- LAD income statement
- LAD valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.