Garrett Motion vs Phinia
GTX and PHIN 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 GTX and PHIN compare
Garrett Motion is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as Phinia ($3.9B against $2.6B).
On earnings, Garrett Motion is cheaper: it trades at 10.7× trailing earnings, against 14.8× for Phinia.
Garrett Motion grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.9% versus 5.6% for Phinia).
Garrett Motion keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.0% compared with 5.2% at Phinia.
Both pay dividends: Garrett Motion yields 1.5% and Phinia 1.6%.
Phinia scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 14 for Garrett Motion), 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 | GTX | PHIN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.9B | $2.6B |
| Share price | $20.88 | $73.37 |
| Change, 1 year | 21.9% | 33.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 178% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.85 | 0.91 |
| Employees | 2,000 | 13K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 10.7× (better) | 14.8× |
| P/S | 1.0× | 0.7× (better) |
| P/B | – | 1.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 7.1× |
| P/FCF | 9.8× (better) | 11.6× |
| PEG | 0.40 | – |
| FCF yield | 10.2% (better) | 8.6% |
| Fair value | $24.75 | $79.50 |
| Margin of safety | 15.6% (better) | 7.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.9% (better) | 5.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.4% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 15.6% | 110% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 24.2% | 123% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 7.7% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 21.1% | 22.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | – | 8.3% |
| Net margin | 10.0% (better) | 5.2% |
| FCF margin | 10.4% (better) | 6.3% |
| Return on equity | – | 12.2% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 10.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.72 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 1.41 |
| Current ratio | 1.04 | 1.70 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.63 | 2.15 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 9 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.5% | 1.6% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 16.4% | 22.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 2 |
| Buyback yield | 6.3% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 7.9% (better) | 1.6% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.8% | 105% |
| Held by insiders | 35.2% | 2.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$18.0M | −$4.3M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.4% | 10.7% |
Go deeper
- GTX stock overview
- GTX income statement
- GTX valuation and score
- PHIN stock overview
- PHIN income statement
- PHIN valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.