Auto - Dealerships
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
CWH vs WGO vs THO vs LCII vs PATK
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Auto - Recreational Vehicles
Auto - Recreational Vehicles
Auto - Recreational Vehicles
Furnishings, Fixtures & Appliances
CWH vs WGO vs THO vs LCII vs PATK — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Auto - Dealerships | Auto - Recreational Vehicles | Auto - Recreational Vehicles | Auto - Recreational Vehicles | Furnishings, Fixtures & Appliances |
| Market Cap | $483M | $900M | $4.06B | $2.83B | $3.17B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $6.31B | $2.88B | $9.93B | $4.17B | $3.94B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-94M | $36M | $300M | $202M | $136M |
| Gross Margin | 29.3% | 13.1% | 14.0% | 24.1% | 22.5% |
| Operating Margin | 2.8% | 2.5% | 4.5% | 7.0% | 7.0% |
| Forward P/E | 11.3x | 13.7x | 18.5x | 13.4x | 18.2x |
| Total Debt | $2.67B | $595M | $923M | $1.24B | $1.64B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $215M | $174M | $587M | $223M | $26M |
CWH vs WGO vs THO vs LCII vs PATK — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Camping World Holdi… (CWH) | 100 | 35.9 | -64.1% |
| Winnebago Industrie… (WGO) | 100 | 58.6 | -41.4% |
| Thor Industries, In… (THO) | 100 | 89.2 | -10.8% |
| LCI Industries (LCII) | 100 | 117.7 | +17.7% |
| Patrick Industries,… (PATK) | 100 | 275.8 | +175.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CWH vs WGO vs THO vs LCII vs PATK
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CWH is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if value and dividends is your priority.
- Lower P/E (11.3x vs 18.2x)
- 6.6% yield, vs THO's 2.6%
WGO lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
Among these 5 stocks, THO doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
LCII carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 9 yrs, beta 0.99, yield 3.9%
- Rev growth 10.2%, EPS growth 35.2%, 3Y rev CAGR -7.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.99, Low D/E 90.8%, current ratio 2.85x
- PEG 3.48 vs THO's 4.97
PATK ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding.
- 395.2% 10Y total return vs LCII's 111.5%
- Beta 0.93 vs CWH's 2.35, lower leverage
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 10.2% revenue growth vs WGO's -5.9% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (11.3x vs 18.2x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 4.8% margin vs CWH's -1.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.93 vs CWH's 2.35, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 6.6% yield, vs THO's 2.6% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +45.6% vs CWH's -42.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 6.3% ROA vs CWH's -1.8%, ROIC 9.1% vs 4.0% |
CWH vs WGO vs THO vs LCII vs PATK — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
CWH vs WGO vs THO vs LCII vs PATK — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
LCII leads in 2 of 6 categories
CWH leads 1 • PATK leads 1 • WGO leads 0 • THO leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
LCII leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
THO is the larger business by revenue, generating $9.9B annually — 3.5x WGO's $2.9B. LCII is the more profitable business, keeping 4.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CWH's -1.5%. On growth, WGO holds the edge at +12.3% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $6.3B | $2.9B | $9.9B | $4.2B | $3.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $274M | $132M | $714M | $385M | $445M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$94M | $36M | $300M | $202M | $136M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$156M | $136M | $228M | $245M | $194M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +29.3% | +13.1% | +14.0% | +24.1% | +22.5% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +2.8% | +2.5% | +4.5% | +7.0% | +7.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -1.5% | +1.3% | +3.0% | +4.8% | +3.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -2.5% | +4.7% | +2.3% | +5.9% | +4.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -4.2% | +12.3% | +5.3% | +4.3% | -0.6% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -23.8% | +2.1% | +35.0% | +30.4% | -0.9% |
Valuation Metrics
CWH leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 15.4x trailing earnings, LCII trades at a 56% valuation discount to WGO's 35.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), LCII offers better value at 4.01x vs THO's 4.26x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $483M | $900M | $4.1B | $2.8B | $3.2B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $2.9B | $1.3B | $4.4B | $3.8B | $4.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -5.32x | 35.05x | 15.89x | 15.38x | 24.45x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 11.27x | 13.67x | 18.54x | 13.38x | 18.24x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 4.26x | 4.01x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 10.71x | 13.81x | 6.38x | 9.57x | 10.72x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.08x | 0.32x | 0.42x | 0.69x | 0.80x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.28x | 0.74x | 0.96x | 2.13x | 2.79x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 10.06x | 8.93x | 10.16x | 12.86x |
Profitability & Efficiency
LCII leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
LCII delivers a 14.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $15 in annual profit, vs $-22 for CWH. THO carries lower financial leverage with a 0.22x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CWH's 7.17x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), LCII scores 8/9 vs CWH's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -21.8% | +3.0% | +7.0% | +14.7% | +11.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -1.8% | +1.7% | +4.3% | +6.3% | +4.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +4.0% | +2.6% | +6.7% | +9.1% | +7.6% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +5.9% | +2.9% | +7.6% | +10.8% | +10.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 7.17x | 0.49x | 0.22x | 0.91x | 1.39x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $2.5B | $421M | $336M | $1.0B | $1.6B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $215M | $174M | $587M | $223M | $26M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2.7B | $595M | $923M | $1.2B | $1.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.14x | 2.77x | 9.82x | 5.49x | 3.40x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
PATK leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in PATK five years ago would be worth $15,662 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,990 for CWH. Over the past 12 months, LCII leads with a +45.6% total return vs CWH's -42.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors PATK at 31.7% vs CWH's -27.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -21.7% | -20.2% | -26.1% | -5.4% | -13.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -42.0% | +3.0% | +7.0% | +45.6% | +19.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -61.7% | -39.6% | +0.3% | +11.2% | +128.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -70.1% | -55.7% | -40.8% | -6.1% | +56.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -21.7% | +89.3% | +43.7% | +111.5% | +395.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -27.4% | -15.5% | +0.1% | +3.6% | +31.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — LCII and PATK each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
PATK is the less volatile stock with a 0.93 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CWH's 2.35 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. LCII currently trades 72.9% from its 52-week high vs CWH's 38.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.35x | 1.15x | 1.23x | 0.99x | 0.93x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $19.64 | $50.16 | $122.83 | $159.66 | $148.50 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $5.70 | $28.00 | $73.29 | $82.29 | $80.35 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +38.7% | +63.6% | +62.6% | +72.9% | +64.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 55.9 | 45.6 | 44.1 | 45.6 | 42.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 3.5M | 618K | 768K | 352K | 469K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — CWH and THO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CWH as "Buy", WGO as "Hold", THO as "Hold", LCII as "Hold", PATK as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 57.8% upside for CWH (target: $12) vs 29.3% for LCII (target: $151). For income investors, CWH offers the higher dividend yield at 6.59% vs PATK's 1.67%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $12.00 | $41.80 | $114.25 | $150.60 | $126.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 24 | 22 | 41 | 14 | 17 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +6.6% | +4.3% | +2.6% | +3.9% | +1.7% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 7 | 10 | 9 | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.50 | $1.37 | $1.99 | $4.59 | $1.60 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +6.0% | +1.3% | +4.5% | +1.0% |
LCII leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). CWH leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
CWH vs WGO vs THO vs LCII vs PATK: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CWH or WGO or THO or LCII or PATK a better buy right now?
For growth investors, LCI Industries (LCII) is the stronger pick with 10.
2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -5. 9% for Winnebago Industries, Inc. (WGO). LCI Industries (LCII) offers the better valuation at 15. 4x trailing P/E (13. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Camping World Holdings, Inc. (CWH) a "Buy" — based on 24 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 — CWH or WGO or THO or LCII or PATK?
On trailing P/E, LCI Industries (LCII) is the cheapest at 15.
4x versus Winnebago Industries, Inc. at 35. 1x. On forward P/E, Camping World Holdings, Inc. is actually cheaper at 11. 3x — 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: LCI Industries wins at 3. 48x versus Thor Industries, Inc. 's 4. 97x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — CWH or WGO or THO or LCII or PATK?
Over the past 5 years, Patrick Industries, Inc.
(PATK) delivered a total return of +56. 6%, compared to -70. 1% for Camping World Holdings, Inc. (CWH). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PATK returned +395. 2% versus CWH's -21. 7%. 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 — CWH or WGO or THO or LCII or PATK?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Patrick Industries, Inc.
(PATK) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 93β versus Camping World Holdings, Inc. 's 2. 35β — meaning CWH is approximately 152% more volatile than PATK relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Thor Industries, Inc. (THO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 22% versus 7% for Camping World Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — CWH or WGO or THO or LCII or PATK?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), LCI Industries (LCII) is pulling ahead at 10.
2% versus -5. 9% for Winnebago Industries, Inc. (WGO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Winnebago Industries, Inc. grew EPS 106. 8% year-over-year, compared to -78. 8% for Camping World Holdings, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CWH leads at -2. 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 — CWH or WGO or THO or LCII or PATK?
LCI Industries (LCII) is the more profitable company, earning 4.
6% net margin versus -1. 4% for Camping World Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 4. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: PATK leads at 7. 0% versus 2. 0% for WGO. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CWH leads at 29. 5%, 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 CWH or WGO or THO or LCII or PATK 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, LCI Industries (LCII) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 3. 48x versus Thor Industries, Inc. 's 4. 97x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Camping World Holdings, Inc. (CWH) trades at 11. 3x forward P/E versus 18. 5x for Thor Industries, Inc. — 7. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CWH: 57. 8% to $12. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — CWH or WGO or THO or LCII or PATK?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. (CWH) offers the highest yield at 6. 6%, versus 1. 7% for Patrick Industries, Inc. (PATK).
09Is CWH or WGO or THO or LCII or PATK better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Patrick Industries, Inc.
(PATK) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 93), 1. 7% yield, +395. 2% 10Y return). Camping World Holdings, Inc. (CWH) carries a higher beta of 2. 35 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (PATK: +395. 2%, CWH: -21. 7%), 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 CWH and WGO and THO and LCII and PATK?
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: CWH is a small-cap income-oriented stock; WGO is a small-cap income-oriented stock; THO is a small-cap deep-value stock; LCII is a small-cap deep-value stock; PATK is a small-cap quality compounder stock. 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.