Auto - Parts
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
CREV vs AMZN vs MSFT vs LCII vs AAPL
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Specialty Retail
Software - Infrastructure
Auto - Recreational Vehicles
Consumer Electronics
CREV vs AMZN vs MSFT vs LCII vs AAPL — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Auto - Parts | Specialty Retail | Software - Infrastructure | Auto - Recreational Vehicles | Consumer Electronics |
| Market Cap | $775K | $2.93T | $3.08T | $2.89B | $4.31T |
| Revenue (TTM) | $58M | $742.78B | $318.27B | $4.17B | $451.44B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-46M | $90.80B | $125.22B | $202M | $122.58B |
| Gross Margin | -40.2% | 50.6% | 68.3% | 24.1% | 47.9% |
| Operating Margin | -63.3% | 11.5% | 46.8% | 7.0% | 32.6% |
| Forward P/E | — | 31.4x | 24.8x | 13.3x | 33.7x |
| Total Debt | $111M | $152.99B | $112.18B | $1.24B | $112.38B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $4M | $86.81B | $30.24B | $223M | $35.93B |
CREV vs AMZN vs MSFT vs LCII vs AAPL — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Nov 23 | Apr 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon Revolution P… (CREV) | 100 | 1.2 | -98.8% |
| Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) | 100 | 143.7 | +43.7% |
| Microsoft Corporati… (MSFT) | 100 | 103.6 | +3.6% |
| LCI Industries (LCII) | 100 | 122.8 | +22.8% |
| Apple Inc. (AAPL) | 100 | 139.1 | +39.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CREV vs AMZN vs MSFT vs LCII vs AAPL
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CREV is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 86.8%, EPS growth 100.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 26.9%
- 86.8% revenue growth vs AAPL's 6.4%
AMZN is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 1.12 vs LCII's 3.47
MSFT has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 19 yrs, beta 0.85, yield 0.8%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.85, Low D/E 32.7%, current ratio 1.35x
- 39.3% margin vs CREV's -79.6%
- Beta 0.85 vs CREV's 1.69
LCII is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if defensive is your priority.
- Beta 1.09, yield 3.9%, current ratio 2.85x
- Lower P/E (13.3x vs 33.7x)
- 3.9% yield, 9-year raise streak, vs MSFT's 0.8%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
AAPL ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding.
- 12.0% 10Y total return vs MSFT's 7.8%
- +49.0% vs CREV's -87.2%
- 34.0% ROA vs CREV's -25.2%, ROIC 67.4% vs -27.1%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 86.8% revenue growth vs AAPL's 6.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (13.3x vs 33.7x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 39.3% margin vs CREV's -79.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.85 vs CREV's 1.69 | |
| Dividends | 3.9% yield, 9-year raise streak, vs MSFT's 0.8%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +49.0% vs CREV's -87.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 34.0% ROA vs CREV's -25.2%, ROIC 67.4% vs -27.1% |
CREV vs AMZN vs MSFT vs LCII vs AAPL — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
CREV vs AMZN vs MSFT vs LCII vs AAPL — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
MSFT leads in 1 of 6 categories
LCII leads 1 • AAPL leads 1 • CREV leads 0 • AMZN leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MSFT leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AMZN is the larger business by revenue, generating $742.8B annually — 12889.6x CREV's $58M. MSFT is the more profitable business, keeping 39.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CREV's -79.6%. On growth, CREV holds the edge at +107.9% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $58M | $742.8B | $318.3B | $4.2B | $451.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$25M | $155.9B | $192.6B | $385M | $160.0B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$46M | $90.8B | $125.2B | $202M | $122.6B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$62M | -$2.5B | $72.9B | $245M | $129.2B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | -40.2% | +50.6% | +68.3% | +24.1% | +47.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -63.3% | +11.5% | +46.8% | +7.0% | +32.6% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -79.6% | +12.2% | +39.3% | +4.8% | +27.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -107.6% | -0.3% | +22.9% | +5.9% | +28.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +107.9% | +16.6% | +18.3% | +4.3% | +16.6% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -156.9% | +74.8% | +23.4% | +30.4% | +21.8% |
Valuation Metrics
LCII leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 15.7x trailing earnings, LCII trades at a 60% valuation discount to AAPL's 39.3x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), AMZN offers better value at 1.36x vs LCII's 4.09x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $775,174 | $2.93T | $3.08T | $2.9B | $4.31T |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $78M | $3.00T | $3.17T | $3.9B | $4.38T |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | — | 38.03x | 30.43x | 15.70x | 39.31x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 31.41x | 24.77x | 13.32x | 33.71x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.36x | 1.62x | 4.09x | 2.20x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 20.58x | 19.46x | 9.72x | 30.27x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.02x | 4.09x | 10.94x | 0.70x | 10.35x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 7.18x | 9.02x | 2.17x | 59.68x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 381.09x | 43.06x | 10.37x | 43.59x |
Profitability & Efficiency
AAPL leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
AAPL delivers a 146.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $147 in annual profit, vs $15 for LCII. MSFT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.33x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to AAPL's 1.52x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), LCII scores 8/9 vs CREV's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | +23.3% | +33.1% | +14.7% | +146.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -25.2% | +11.5% | +19.2% | +6.3% | +34.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -27.1% | +14.7% | +24.9% | +9.1% | +67.4% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -3.1% | +15.3% | +29.7% | +10.8% | +69.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.37x | 0.33x | 0.91x | 1.52x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $107M | $66.2B | $81.9B | $1.0B | $76.4B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $4M | $86.8B | $30.2B | $223M | $35.9B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $111M | $153.0B | $112.2B | $1.2B | $112.4B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -6.46x | 39.96x | 55.65x | 5.49x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — AMZN and AAPL each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in AAPL five years ago would be worth $23,479 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $137 for CREV. Over the past 12 months, AAPL leads with a +49.0% total return vs CREV's -87.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors AMZN at 37.1% vs CREV's -76.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -76.8% | +20.4% | -12.0% | -3.5% | +8.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -87.2% | +42.0% | -4.5% | +43.9% | +49.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -98.6% | +157.7% | +37.6% | +13.3% | +70.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -98.6% | +70.9% | +73.8% | +7.6% | +134.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -98.6% | +702.2% | +776.0% | +114.9% | +1199.3% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -76.1% | +37.1% | +11.2% | +4.2% | +19.5% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — MSFT and AAPL each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MSFT is the less volatile stock with a 0.85 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CREV's 1.69 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. AAPL currently trades 99.5% from its 52-week high vs CREV's 4.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.69x | 1.50x | 0.85x | 1.09x | 1.04x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $9.20 | $278.56 | $555.45 | $159.66 | $294.76 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.01 | $188.82 | $356.28 | $83.87 | $193.46 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +4.4% | +97.9% | +74.7% | +74.4% | +99.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 44.2 | 74.2 | 57.9 | 45.0 | 69.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 234K | 45.2M | 32.5M | 352K | 40.0M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — MSFT and LCII each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: AMZN as "Buy", MSFT as "Buy", LCII as "Hold", AAPL as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 34.2% upside for MSFT (target: $557) vs 8.9% for AAPL (target: $319). For income investors, LCII offers the higher dividend yield at 3.86% vs AAPL's 0.35%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $306.77 | $556.88 | $148.60 | $319.44 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 94 | 81 | 14 | 110 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +0.8% | +3.9% | +0.4% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | 19 | 9 | 14 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $3.23 | $4.59 | $1.03 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.6% | +4.5% | +2.1% |
MSFT leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). LCII leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 3 tied.
CREV vs AMZN vs MSFT vs LCII vs AAPL: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CREV or AMZN or MSFT or LCII or AAPL a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Carbon Revolution Public Limited Ordinary Shares (CREV) is the stronger pick with 86.
8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 6. 4% for Apple Inc. (AAPL). LCI Industries (LCII) offers the better valuation at 15. 7x trailing P/E (13. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN) a "Buy" — based on 94 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.
02Which has the better valuation — CREV or AMZN or MSFT or LCII or AAPL?
On trailing P/E, LCI Industries (LCII) is the cheapest at 15.
7x versus Apple Inc. at 39. 3x. On forward P/E, LCI Industries is actually cheaper at 13. 3x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Amazon. com, Inc. wins at 1. 12x versus LCI Industries's 3. 47x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — CREV or AMZN or MSFT or LCII or AAPL?
Over the past 5 years, Apple Inc.
(AAPL) delivered a total return of +134. 8%, compared to -98. 6% for Carbon Revolution Public Limited Ordinary Shares (CREV). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AAPL returned +1199% versus CREV's -98. 6%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — CREV or AMZN or MSFT or LCII or AAPL?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
85β versus Carbon Revolution Public Limited Ordinary Shares's 1. 69β — meaning CREV is approximately 98% more volatile than MSFT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 33% versus 152% for Apple Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — CREV or AMZN or MSFT or LCII or AAPL?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Carbon Revolution Public Limited Ordinary Shares (CREV) is pulling ahead at 86.
8% versus 6. 4% for Apple Inc. (AAPL). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Carbon Revolution Public Limited Ordinary Shares grew EPS 100. 0% year-over-year, compared to 15. 6% for Microsoft Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, CREV leads at 26. 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.
06Which has better profit margins — CREV or AMZN or MSFT or LCII or AAPL?
Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the more profitable company, earning 36.
1% net margin versus -309. 4% for Carbon Revolution Public Limited Ordinary Shares — meaning it keeps 36. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MSFT leads at 45. 6% versus -235. 9% for CREV. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MSFT leads at 68. 8%, 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.
07Is CREV or AMZN or MSFT or LCII or AAPL more undervalued right now?
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, Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 12x versus LCI Industries's 3. 47x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, LCI Industries (LCII) trades at 13. 3x forward P/E versus 33. 7x for Apple Inc. — 20. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MSFT: 34. 2% to $556. 88.
08Which pays a better dividend — CREV or AMZN or MSFT or LCII or AAPL?
In this comparison, LCII (3.
9% yield), MSFT (0. 8% yield), AAPL (0. 4% yield) pay a dividend. CREV, AMZN do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is CREV or AMZN or MSFT or LCII or AAPL better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
85), 0. 8% yield, +776. 0% 10Y return). Carbon Revolution Public Limited Ordinary Shares (CREV) carries a higher beta of 1. 69 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (MSFT: +776. 0%, CREV: -98. 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.
10What are the main differences between CREV and AMZN and MSFT and LCII and AAPL?
These companies operate in different sectors (CREV (Consumer Cyclical) and AMZN (Consumer Cyclical) and MSFT (Technology) and LCII (Consumer Cyclical) and AAPL (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: CREV is a small-cap high-growth stock; AMZN is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; MSFT is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; LCII is a small-cap deep-value stock; AAPL is a mega-cap quality compounder stock. MSFT, LCII pay a dividend while CREV, AMZN, AAPL do 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.