ALV vs TSLA vs GM vs F

For growth investors, Autoliv, Inc.

(ALV) is the stronger pick with 4. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -2. 9% for Tesla, Inc. (TSLA). Autoliv, Inc. (ALV) offers the better valuation at 12. 7x trailing P/E (11. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate General Motors Company (GM) a "Buy" — based on 51 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On trailing P/E, Autoliv, Inc.

(ALV) is the cheapest at 12. 7x versus Tesla, Inc. at 381. 3x. On forward P/E, General Motors Company is actually cheaper at 6. 2x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Autoliv, Inc. wins at 0. 33x versus Tesla, Inc. 's 5. 50x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Tesla, Inc.

(TSLA) delivered a total return of +83. 7%, compared to +29. 9% for Autoliv, Inc. (ALV). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: TSLA returned +28. 6% versus F's +36. 2%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Ford Motor Company (F) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

97β versus Tesla, Inc. 's 2. 06β — meaning TSLA is approximately 112% more volatile than F relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Tesla, Inc. (TSLA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 10% versus 5% for Ford Motor Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Autoliv, Inc.

(ALV) is pulling ahead at 4. 1% versus -2. 9% for Tesla, Inc. (TSLA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Autoliv, Inc. grew EPS 19. 1% year-over-year, compared to -241. 1% for Ford Motor Company. Over a 3-year CAGR, ALV leads at 6. 9% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

Autoliv, Inc.

(ALV) is the more profitable company, earning 6. 8% net margin versus -4. 4% for Ford Motor Company — meaning it keeps 6. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ALV leads at 10. 1% versus 1. 4% for F. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ALV leads at 19. 2%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.

By this metric, Autoliv, Inc. (ALV) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 33x versus Tesla, Inc. 's 5. 50x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, General Motors Company (GM) trades at 6. 2x forward P/E versus 213. 0x for Tesla, Inc. — 206. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for GM: 17. 0% to $91. 75.

In this comparison, F (6.

2% yield), ALV (2. 6% yield), GM (0. 9% yield) pay a dividend. TSLA does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, General Motors Company (GM) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1.

07), 0. 9% yield, +180. 2% 10Y return). Tesla, Inc. (TSLA) carries a higher beta of 2. 06 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (GM: +180. 2%, TSLA: +28. 6%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

Both stocks operate in the Consumer Cyclical sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

In terms of investment character: ALV is a small-cap deep-value stock; TSLA is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; GM is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; F is a mid-cap income-oriented stock. ALV, GM, F pay a dividend while TSLA does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.