Lear vs Magna International
LEA and MGA 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 LEA and MGA compare
Lear grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.5% versus −1.9% for Magna International).
Lear keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.5% compared with 2.0% at Magna International.
Lear pays a dividend yielding 2.6%; Magna International does not pay one.
Lear scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 8 for Magna International), 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 | LEA | MGA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.8B | – |
| Share price | $118.44 | $63.82 |
| Change, 1 year | 13.8% | 40.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −33.6% | −23.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.92 | 1.11 |
| Employees | 75K | 125K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 22 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 10.3× | – |
| P/S | 0.2× | – |
| P/B | 1.2× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.3× | – |
| P/FCF | 8.3× | – |
| PEG | 0.73 | – |
| FCF yield | 12.0% | – |
| Fair value | $170.97 | – |
| Margin of safety | 30.7% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 3.5% (better) | −1.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.4% (better) | 5.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 32.2% (better) | −17.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 40.0% (better) | −16.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 25.5% (better) | 3.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 6.9% | 14.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | 3.7% | – |
| Net margin | 2.5% (better) | 2.0% |
| FCF margin | 2.9% | 5.4% (better) |
| Return on equity | 11.6% (better) | 6.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 10.2% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.55 | 0.38 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.25 | – |
| Interest coverage | 9.1× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.18 | 1.25 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.79 | – |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.6% | – |
| Payout ratio | 27.1% | 65.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 3.9% |
| Buyback yield | 9.0% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 11.6% | – |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 108% | 63.9% |
| Held by insiders | 0.42% | 0.00% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$15.5M | – |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.0% | 2.7% |
Go deeper
- LEA stock overview
- LEA income statement
- LEA valuation and score
- MGA stock overview
- MGA income statement
- MGA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.