Garrett Motion vs Visteon
GTX and VC 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 VC compare
Garrett Motion is the larger company, worth 2.0 times as much as Visteon ($3.9B against $2.0B).
On earnings, Garrett Motion is cheaper: it trades at 10.8× trailing earnings, against 13.8× for Visteon.
Garrett Motion grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.9% versus 1.9% for Visteon).
Garrett Motion keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.0% compared with 4.1% at Visteon.
Both pay dividends: Garrett Motion yields 1.5% and Visteon 1.7%.
Visteon scores higher on the StockData Score (16 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 | VC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.9B | $2.0B |
| Share price | $21.00 | $80.07 |
| Change, 1 year | 19.9% | −25.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 180% | −33.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.85 | 0.85 |
| Employees | 2,000 | 11K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 10.8× (better) | 13.8× |
| P/S | 1.0× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | – | 1.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 5.9× |
| P/FCF | 9.8× | – |
| PEG | 0.41 (better) | 0.74 |
| FCF yield | 10.2% | – |
| Fair value | $25.81 | $115.26 |
| Margin of safety | 18.6% | 30.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.9% (better) | 1.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.4% | 8.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 15.6% (better) | −36.9% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 24.2% (better) | −36.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 7.7% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 21.1% (better) | 10.4% |
| Net margin | 10.0% (better) | 4.1% |
| FCF margin | 10.4% | – |
| Return on equity | – | 10.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.23 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −0.41 |
| Current ratio | 1.04 | 1.61 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.63 | 3.17 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 9 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.5% | 1.7% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 16.4% | 22.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Buyback yield | 6.3% | 14.5% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 7.8% | 16.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.8% | 129% |
| Held by insiders | 35.2% | 2.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$18.0M | −$11.8M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.4% | 16.8% |
Go deeper
- GTX stock overview
- GTX income statement
- GTX valuation and score
- VC stock overview
- VC income statement
- VC valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.