Lithia Motors vs Penske Automotive
LAD and PAG 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 LAD and PAG compare
Penske Automotive is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as Lithia Motors ($13.9B against $6.6B).
On earnings, Lithia Motors is cheaper: it trades at 10.0× trailing earnings, against 15.5× for Penske Automotive.
Lithia Motors grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (2.1% versus 1.4% for Penske Automotive).
Penske Automotive keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.8% compared with 1.9% at Lithia Motors.
Both pay dividends: Lithia Motors yields 0.79% and Penske Automotive 2.7%.
Lithia Motors scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 12 for Penske 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 | LAD | PAG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.6B | $13.9B |
| Share price | $299.72 | $212.12 |
| Change, 1 year | −6.9% | 31.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −8.7% | 89.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.02 | 0.66 |
| Employees | 30K | 28K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 10.0× (better) | 15.5× |
| P/S | 0.2× (better) | 0.4× |
| P/B | 1.0× (better) | 2.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 3.5× (better) | 13.5× |
| P/FCF | – | 28.0× |
| FCF yield | −7.7% | 3.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $432.80 | $142.78 |
| Margin of safety | 30.7% (better) | −48.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 2.1% (better) | 1.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 23.4% (better) | 9.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −19.3% | −9.7% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −10.1% | −8.8% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 10.6% | 16.0% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 15.2% | 16.0% (better) |
| Operating margin | 4.1% (better) | 3.7% |
| Net margin | 1.9% | 2.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | −1.3% | 1.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | 10.7% | 15.5% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 17.6% (better) | 11.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.40 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 1.91 |
| Interest coverage | 5.6× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.00 (better) | 0.98 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.18 | 3.11 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.79% | 2.7% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 7.4% | 41.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 11 (better) | 5 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 12.3% | 43.9% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 18.3% (better) | 0.48% |
| Shareholder yield | 19.1% (better) | 3.1% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 112% | 28.2% |
| Held by insiders | 13.0% | 73.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$423K (better) | −$832K |
| Superinvestors holding | 5 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 10.1% | 14.1% |
Go deeper
- LAD stock overview
- LAD income statement
- LAD valuation and score
- PAG stock overview
- PAG income statement
- PAG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.