Standard Motor Products vs Stoneridge
SMP and SRI 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 SMP and SRI compare
Standard Motor Products is the larger company, worth 6.8 times as much as Stoneridge ($984M against $145M).
Stoneridge grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (37.8% versus 5.5% for Standard Motor Products).
Standard Motor Products keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.8% compared with −14.6% at Stoneridge.
Standard Motor Products pays a dividend yielding 3.0%; Stoneridge does not pay one.
Standard Motor Products scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 4 for Stoneridge), 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 | SMP | SRI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $984M | $145M |
| Share price | $44.03 | $5.07 |
| Change, 1 year | 13.1% | −16.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −16.4% | −77.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.73 | 1.35 |
| Employees | 5,700 | 4,200 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 4 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 14.4× | – |
| P/S | 0.5× | 0.2× (better) |
| P/B | 1.4× | 1.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.8× | – |
| P/FCF | 6.7× | – |
| FCF yield | 14.8% (better) | −0.06% |
| Fair value | $50.95 | $12.32 |
| Margin of safety | 13.6% | 58.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.5% | 37.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.7% (better) | 5.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 122% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 118% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −6.0% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 32.0% (better) | 16.5% |
| Operating margin | 8.5% (better) | −6.9% |
| Net margin | 3.8% (better) | −14.6% |
| FCF margin | 7.9% (better) | −0.01% |
| Return on equity | 9.9% (better) | −70.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 10.0% (better) | −24.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.67 (better) | 1.16 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.88 | – |
| Interest coverage | 5.4× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.81 (better) | 0.96 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.38 (better) | 1.64 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.0% | – |
| Payout ratio | 41.6% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 19.9% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.03% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 3.0% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 82.0% | 81.0% |
| Held by insiders | 7.8% | 12.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.9M | $85.7K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.4% | 3.1% |
Go deeper
- SMP stock overview
- SMP income statement
- SMP valuation and score
- SRI stock overview
- SRI income statement
- SRI valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.