Autoliv vs Lear
ALV and LEA 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 ALV and LEA compare
Autoliv is the larger company, worth 1.7 times as much as Lear ($8.7B against $5.2B).
On earnings, Lear is cheaper: it trades at 9.5× trailing earnings, against 14.4× for Autoliv.
Autoliv grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.3% versus 3.5% for Lear).
Autoliv keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.6% compared with 2.5% at Lear.
Both pay dividends: Autoliv yields 2.2% and Lear 2.8%.
Lear scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 18 for Autoliv), 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 | ALV | LEA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.7B | $5.2B |
| Share price | $120.42 | $108.71 |
| Change, 1 year | −3.3% | −0.78% |
| Change, 5 years | 14.5% | −38.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.96 | 0.92 |
| Employees | 113 | 75K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 | 22 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 14.4× | 9.5× (better) |
| P/S | 0.8× | 0.2× (better) |
| P/B | 3.5× | 1.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.2× | 4.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 11.9× | 7.5× (better) |
| PEG | 0.57 (better) | 0.67 |
| FCF yield | 8.4% | 13.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $125.58 | $173.15 |
| Margin of safety | 4.1% | 37.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.3% (better) | 3.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.7% (better) | 6.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −17.3% | 32.2% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −13.6% | 40.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 34.9% (better) | 25.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 19.0% (better) | 6.9% |
| Operating margin | 9.1% (better) | 3.7% |
| Net margin | 5.6% (better) | 2.5% |
| FCF margin | 6.6% (better) | 2.9% |
| Return on equity | 24.8% (better) | 11.6% |
| Return on invested capital | 16.6% (better) | 10.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.79 | 0.55 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.21 (better) | 1.25 |
| Interest coverage | 9.9× (better) | 9.1× |
| Current ratio | 1.02 | 1.18 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.96 (better) | 2.75 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.2% | 2.8% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 41.3% | 27.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 38.2% | – |
| Buyback yield | 5.8% | 10.0% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 7.9% | 12.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 69.6% | 110% |
| Held by insiders | 13.3% | 0.42% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.5M (better) | −$16.1M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.2% | 7.0% |
Go deeper
- ALV stock overview
- ALV income statement
- ALV valuation and score
- LEA stock overview
- LEA income statement
- LEA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.