Penske Automotive vs Rush Enterprises
PAG and RUSHA 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 PAG and RUSHA compare
Penske Automotive grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (1.4% versus −2.6% for Rush Enterprises).
Rush Enterprises keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.7% compared with 2.8% at Penske Automotive.
Penske Automotive pays a dividend yielding 2.6%; Rush Enterprises does not pay one.
Penske Automotive scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 8 for Rush Enterprises), 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 | PAG | RUSHA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $14.0B | – |
| Share price | $213.25 | $45.04 |
| Change, 1 year | 35.1% | 35.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 122% | 81.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.65 | 0.79 |
| Employees | 28K | 7,355 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 0 | 0 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 15.6× | – |
| P/S | 0.4× | – |
| P/B | 2.4× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.5× | – |
| P/FCF | 28.1× | – |
| FCF yield | 3.6% | – |
| Fair value | $145.02 | – |
| Margin of safety | −47.1% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.4% (better) | −2.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.2% | 9.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −9.7% | 0.87% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −8.8% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 16.0% | 19.2% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 16.0% | 19.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | 3.7% | 5.1% (better) |
| Net margin | 2.8% | 3.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 1.5% (better) | 0.80% |
| Return on equity | 15.5% (better) | 12.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 11.4% | 12.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.40 | 0.11 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.91 | 0.08 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 12.2× |
| Current ratio | 0.98 | 1.44 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.12 | – |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.6% | – |
| Payout ratio | 41.3% | 22.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 43.9% (better) | 22.0% |
| Buyback yield | 0.47% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 3.1% | – |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 28.2% | 138% |
| Held by insiders | 73.3% | 13.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$496K (better) | −$12.0M |
| Short interest, % of float | 12.3% | – |
Go deeper
- PAG stock overview
- PAG income statement
- PAG valuation and score
- RUSHA stock overview
- RUSHA income statement
- RUSHA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.