Patrick Industries vs Visteon
PATK 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 PATK and VC compare
Patrick Industries is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Visteon ($2.5B against $2.0B).
On earnings, Visteon is cheaper: it trades at 14.1× trailing earnings, against 18.4× for Patrick Industries.
Patrick Industries grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.2% versus −1.1% for Visteon).
Visteon keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.8% compared with 3.7% at Patrick Industries.
Both pay dividends: Patrick Industries yields 2.4% and Visteon 1.9%.
Visteon scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 11 for Patrick Industries), 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 | PATK | VC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.5B | $2.0B |
| Share price | $77.68 | $73.32 |
| Change, 1 year | −21.4% | −29.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 45.7% | −40.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.12 | 0.85 |
| Employees | 7,500 | 11K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.4× | 14.1× (better) |
| P/S | 0.6× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | 2.2× | 1.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.9× | 4.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 19.5× | – |
| PEG | – | 0.75 |
| FCF yield | 5.1% | – |
| Fair value | $72.63 | $115.07 |
| Margin of safety | −7.0% | 36.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 3.2% (better) | −1.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.7% (better) | 8.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 16.8% (better) | −52.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 14.4% (better) | −52.3% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 6.9% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 23.1% (better) | 12.8% |
| Operating margin | 6.7% | – |
| Net margin | 3.7% | 3.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.2% | – |
| Return on equity | 13.0% (better) | 9.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 8.3% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.25 | 0.19 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.19 (better) | −0.88 |
| Current ratio | 2.67 (better) | 1.78 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.86 | 3.20 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.4% (better) | 1.9% |
| Payout ratio | 40.4% | 24.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Buyback yield | 4.3% | 4.4% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 6.7% (better) | 6.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 112% | 120% |
| Held by insiders | 4.4% | 1.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.9M (better) | −$11.9M |
| Short interest, % of float | 19.0% | 15.8% |
Go deeper
- PATK stock overview
- PATK income statement
- PATK 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.