Murphy USA vs Sonic Automotive
MUSA and SAH 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 MUSA and SAH compare
Murphy USA is the larger company, worth 4.9 times as much as Sonic Automotive ($9.8B against $2.0B).
On earnings, Sonic Automotive is cheaper: it trades at 10.2× trailing earnings, against 15.0× for Murphy USA.
Murphy USA grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (20.2% versus 2.0% for Sonic Automotive).
Murphy USA keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.9% compared with 1.3% at Sonic Automotive.
Both pay dividends: Murphy USA yields 0.48% and Sonic Automotive 2.5%.
Murphy USA scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 14 for Sonic 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 | MUSA | SAH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $9.8B | $2.0B |
| Share price | $534.95 | $63.23 |
| Change, 1 year | 36.4% | 0.41% |
| Change, 5 years | 209% | 22.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.31 | 0.95 |
| Employees | 17K | 11K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 14 |
| Valuation score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 15.0× | 10.2× (better) |
| P/S | 0.4× | 0.1× (better) |
| P/B | 12.4× | 1.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.3× | 5.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | 14.7× (better) | 21.9× |
| PEG | – | 0.66 |
| FCF yield | 6.8% (better) | 4.6% |
| Fair value | $494.52 | $82.55 |
| Margin of safety | −8.2% | 23.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 20.2% (better) | 2.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.5% (better) | 9.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 40.8% | 58.1% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 50.5% | 69.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 13.0% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 15.7% |
| Operating margin | 4.2% (better) | 3.2% |
| Net margin | 2.9% (better) | 1.3% |
| FCF margin | 2.9% (better) | 0.59% |
| Return on equity | 99.0% (better) | 19.4% |
| Return on invested capital | 27.1% (better) | 19.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.76 | 1.65 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.57 (better) | 2.64 |
| Interest coverage | 8.5× | – |
| Current ratio | 0.87 | 0.95 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 7.68 (better) | 3.17 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.48% | 2.5% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 7.1% | −22.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 53.8% | – |
| Buyback yield | 3.8% (better) | 0.78% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.3% (better) | 3.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 83.5% | 46.1% |
| Held by insiders | 6.8% | 73.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$53.1M | −$3.7M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.2% | 28.6% |
Go deeper
- MUSA stock overview
- MUSA income statement
- MUSA valuation and score
- SAH stock overview
- SAH income statement
- SAH valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.