Auto - Parts
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
GT vs DORM vs LKQ vs ALSN vs BWA
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Auto - Parts
Auto - Parts
Auto - Parts
Auto - Parts
GT vs DORM vs LKQ vs ALSN vs BWA — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Auto - Parts | Auto - Parts | Auto - Parts | Auto - Parts | Auto - Parts |
| Market Cap | $1.97B | $3.72B | $7.33B | $10.23B | $12.05B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $17.91B | $2.15B | $13.92B | $3.65B | $14.33B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-2.08B | $190M | $517M | $543M | $362M |
| Gross Margin | 14.7% | 40.7% | 37.7% | 40.8% | 18.9% |
| Operating Margin | 1.6% | 15.6% | 7.3% | 24.1% | 9.6% |
| Forward P/E | 23.7x | 15.0x | 9.7x | 14.1x | 11.8x |
| Total Debt | $7.26B | $633M | $5.06B | $2.92B | $4.18B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $801M | $49M | $319M | $1.50B | $2.31B |
GT vs DORM vs LKQ vs ALSN vs BWA — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Goodyear Tire &… (GT) | 100 | 85.5 | -14.5% |
| Dorman Products, In… (DORM) | 100 | 177.5 | +77.5% |
| LKQ Corporation (LKQ) | 100 | 105.2 | +5.2% |
| Allison Transmissio… (ALSN) | 100 | 329.2 | +229.2% |
| BorgWarner Inc. (BWA) | 100 | 216.8 | +116.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: GT vs DORM vs LKQ vs ALSN vs BWA
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Among these 5 stocks, GT doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
DORM has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in growth exposure and sleep-well-at-night.
- Rev growth 6.0%, EPS growth 8.1%, 3Y rev CAGR 7.1%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.85, Low D/E 42.9%, current ratio 3.09x
- 6.0% revenue growth vs ALSN's -6.7%
- Beta 0.85 vs ALSN's 1.11, lower leverage
LKQ is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and defensive is your priority.
- Dividend streak 4 yrs, beta 0.90, yield 4.2%
- Beta 0.90, yield 4.2%, current ratio 1.67x
- Lower P/E (9.7x vs 11.8x)
- 4.2% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs ALSN's 0.9%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
ALSN ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding and valuation efficiency.
- 373.8% 10Y total return vs DORM's 129.7%
- PEG 0.62 vs LKQ's 4.10
- 14.9% margin vs GT's -11.6%
- 8.4% ROA vs GT's -10.5%, ROIC 22.2% vs 4.3%
BWA is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +94.2% vs GT's -37.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 6.0% revenue growth vs ALSN's -6.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (9.7x vs 11.8x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 14.9% margin vs GT's -11.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.85 vs ALSN's 1.11, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 4.2% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs ALSN's 0.9%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +94.2% vs GT's -37.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 8.4% ROA vs GT's -10.5%, ROIC 22.2% vs 4.3% |
GT vs DORM vs LKQ vs ALSN vs BWA — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
GT vs DORM vs LKQ vs ALSN vs BWA — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
ALSN leads in 3 of 6 categories
GT leads 1 • DORM leads 0 • LKQ leads 0 • BWA leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ALSN leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
GT is the larger business by revenue, generating $17.9B annually — 8.3x DORM's $2.2B. ALSN is the more profitable business, keeping 14.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to GT's -11.6%. On growth, ALSN holds the edge at +83.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $17.9B | $2.2B | $13.9B | $3.6B | $14.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.1B | $377M | $1.4B | $970M | $1.9B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$2.1B | $190M | $517M | $543M | $362M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$126M | $71M | $808M | $713M | $1.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +14.7% | +40.7% | +37.7% | +40.8% | +18.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +1.6% | +15.6% | +7.3% | +24.1% | +9.6% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -11.6% | +8.8% | +3.7% | +14.9% | +2.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -0.7% | +3.3% | +5.8% | +19.5% | +11.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -8.7% | +4.2% | +0.2% | +83.6% | +0.5% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -3.1% | -23.5% | -52.3% | -40.4% | +61.1% |
Valuation Metrics
GT leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 12.2x trailing earnings, LKQ trades at a 73% valuation discount to BWA's 45.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), ALSN offers better value at 0.73x vs LKQ's 5.15x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $2.0B | $3.7B | $7.3B | $10.2B | $12.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $8.4B | $4.3B | $12.1B | $11.7B | $13.9B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -1.15x | 18.75x | 12.22x | 16.79x | 45.45x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 23.71x | 15.00x | 9.73x | 14.10x | 11.83x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.25x | 5.15x | 0.73x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 4.96x | 10.41x | 8.08x | 10.63x | 6.81x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.11x | 1.75x | 0.53x | 3.40x | 0.84x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.58x | 2.59x | 1.12x | 5.60x | 2.24x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 49.18x | 8.65x | 15.77x | 10.22x |
Profitability & Efficiency
ALSN leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ALSN delivers a 29.5% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $29 in annual profit, vs $-55 for GT. DORM carries lower financial leverage with a 0.43x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to GT's 2.13x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), BWA scores 8/9 vs LKQ's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -55.3% | +13.1% | +7.9% | +29.5% | +6.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -10.5% | +7.6% | +3.3% | +8.4% | +2.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +4.3% | +13.9% | +7.2% | +22.2% | +12.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +5.2% | +18.5% | +9.0% | +18.6% | +12.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 2.13x | 0.43x | 0.77x | 1.56x | 0.74x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $6.5B | $584M | $4.7B | $1.4B | $1.9B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $801M | $49M | $319M | $1.5B | $2.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $7.3B | $633M | $5.1B | $2.9B | $4.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -0.29x | 8.24x | 4.50x | 64.20x | 10.46x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
ALSN leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ALSN five years ago would be worth $28,345 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,488 for GT. Over the past 12 months, BWA leads with a +94.2% total return vs GT's -37.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors ALSN at 37.9% vs LKQ's -17.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -23.1% | +0.3% | -3.4% | +24.7% | +25.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -37.7% | +0.5% | -24.1% | +27.7% | +94.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -39.9% | +41.6% | -43.6% | +162.2% | +50.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -65.1% | +19.2% | -32.1% | +183.5% | +28.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -68.6% | +129.7% | +3.7% | +373.8% | +114.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -15.6% | +12.3% | -17.4% | +37.9% | +14.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — LKQ and ALSN each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
DORM is the less volatile stock with a 0.85 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than ALSN's 1.11 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. ALSN currently trades 89.6% from its 52-week high vs GT's 57.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.98x | 0.95x | 0.90x | 1.08x | 1.04x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $12.03 | $166.89 | $42.67 | $137.42 | $70.08 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $6.14 | $98.44 | $27.23 | $76.01 | $29.41 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +57.0% | +74.6% | +67.3% | +89.6% | +83.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 57.3 | 71.2 | 41.2 | 50.9 | 65.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 7.9M | 273K | 2.5M | 814K | 2.3M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — LKQ and ALSN each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: GT as "Hold", DORM as "Buy", LKQ as "Buy", ALSN as "Hold", BWA as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 27.1% upside for LKQ (target: $37) vs -5.8% for ALSN (target: $116). For income investors, LKQ offers the higher dividend yield at 4.22% vs ALSN's 0.87%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $8.15 | $140.00 | $36.50 | $116.00 | $69.80 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 26 | 16 | 22 | 29 | 38 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +4.2% | +0.9% | +0.9% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $1.21 | $1.07 | $0.55 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.3% | +1.1% | +2.2% | +3.2% | +4.2% |
ALSN leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). GT leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
GT vs DORM vs LKQ vs ALSN vs BWA: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GT or DORM or LKQ or ALSN or BWA a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Dorman Products, Inc.
(DORM) is the stronger pick with 6. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -6. 7% for Allison Transmission Holdings, Inc. (ALSN). LKQ Corporation (LKQ) offers the better valuation at 12. 2x trailing P/E (9. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Dorman Products, Inc. (DORM) a "Buy" — based on 16 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 — GT or DORM or LKQ or ALSN or BWA?
On trailing P/E, LKQ Corporation (LKQ) is the cheapest at 12.
2x versus BorgWarner Inc. at 45. 5x. On forward P/E, LKQ Corporation is actually cheaper at 9. 7x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Allison Transmission Holdings, Inc. wins at 0. 62x versus LKQ Corporation's 4. 10x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — GT or DORM or LKQ or ALSN or BWA?
Over the past 5 years, Allison Transmission Holdings, Inc.
(ALSN) delivered a total return of +183. 5%, compared to -65. 1% for The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (GT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ALSN returned +377. 7% versus GT's -69. 9%. 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 — GT or DORM or LKQ or ALSN or BWA?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), LKQ Corporation (LKQ) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
90β versus Allison Transmission Holdings, Inc. 's 1. 08β — meaning ALSN is approximately 20% more volatile than LKQ relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Dorman Products, Inc. (DORM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 43% versus 2% for The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — GT or DORM or LKQ or ALSN or BWA?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Dorman Products, Inc.
(DORM) is pulling ahead at 6. 0% versus -6. 7% for Allison Transmission Holdings, Inc. (ALSN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Dorman Products, Inc. grew EPS 8. 1% year-over-year, compared to -26. 0% for The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. Over a 3-year CAGR, DORM leads at 7. 1% 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 — GT or DORM or LKQ or ALSN or BWA?
Allison Transmission Holdings, Inc.
(ALSN) is the more profitable company, earning 20. 7% net margin versus -9. 4% for The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company — meaning it keeps 20. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ALSN leads at 32. 3% versus 3. 6% for GT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ALSN leads at 48. 4%, 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 GT or DORM or LKQ or ALSN or BWA 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, Allison Transmission Holdings, Inc. (ALSN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 62x versus LKQ Corporation's 4. 10x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, LKQ Corporation (LKQ) trades at 9. 7x forward P/E versus 23. 7x for The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company — 14. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for LKQ: 27. 1% to $36. 50.
08Which pays a better dividend — GT or DORM or LKQ or ALSN or BWA?
In this comparison, LKQ (4.
2% yield), BWA (0. 9% yield), ALSN (0. 9% yield) pay a dividend. GT, DORM do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is GT or DORM or LKQ or ALSN or BWA better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Allison Transmission Holdings, Inc.
(ALSN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 08), 0. 9% yield, +377. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ALSN: +377. 7%, GT: -69. 9%), 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 GT and DORM and LKQ and ALSN and BWA?
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: GT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; DORM is a small-cap quality compounder stock; LKQ is a small-cap deep-value stock; ALSN is a mid-cap deep-value stock; BWA is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. LKQ, ALSN, BWA pay a dividend while GT, DORM 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.