Aptiv vs Lear
APTV 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 APTV and LEA compare
Aptiv is the larger company, worth 1.6 times as much as Lear ($8.2B against $5.3B).
On earnings, Lear is cheaper: it trades at 9.6× trailing earnings, against 37.3× for Aptiv.
Aptiv grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.3% versus 3.5% for Lear).
Lear keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.5% compared with 1.2% at Aptiv.
Lear pays a dividend yielding 2.8%; Aptiv does not pay one.
Lear scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 7 for Aptiv), 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 | APTV | LEA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.2B | $5.3B |
| Share price | $39.57 | $109.79 |
| Change, 1 year | −52.7% | 1.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −77.5% | −38.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.19 | 0.93 |
| Employees | 140K | 75K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 22 (better) |
| Valuation score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 37.3× | 9.6× (better) |
| P/S | 0.4× | 0.2× (better) |
| P/B | 0.9× (better) | 1.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.6× | 4.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 12.0× | 7.5× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.67 |
| FCF yield | 8.3% | 13.2% (better) |
| Fair value | $53.41 | $178.11 |
| Margin of safety | 25.9% | 38.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.3% (better) | 3.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.3% (better) | 6.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −78.3% | 32.2% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −75.7% | 40.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −35.4% | 25.5% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 19.6% (better) | 6.9% |
| Operating margin | 5.3% (better) | 3.7% |
| Net margin | 1.2% | 2.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.7% (better) | 2.9% |
| Return on equity | 2.4% | 11.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 3.3% | 10.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.61 | 0.55 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.38 | 1.25 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 3.0× | 9.1× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.02 (better) | 1.18 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.39 | 2.76 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.8% |
| Payout ratio | – | 27.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Buyback yield | 8.8% | 9.9% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 8.8% | 12.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 101% | 110% |
| Held by insiders | 1.5% | 0.42% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $6.0M (better) | −$16.1M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.4% | 7.0% |
Go deeper
- APTV stock overview
- APTV income statement
- APTV 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.