Auto - Parts
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
GTX vs AMZN
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Specialty Retail
GTX vs AMZN — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Auto - Parts | Specialty Retail |
| Market Cap | $5.09B | $2.92T |
| Revenue (TTM) | $2.71B | $742.78B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $343M | $90.80B |
| Gross Margin | 31.6% | 50.6% |
| Operating Margin | 13.4% | 11.5% |
| Forward P/E | 15.2x | 34.8x |
| Total Debt | $1.51B | $152.99B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $179M | $86.81B |
GTX vs AMZN — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Garrett Motion Inc. (GTX) | 100 | 522.8 | +422.8% |
| Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) | 100 | 222.1 | +122.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: GTX vs AMZN
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
GTX carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for value and quality.
- Lower P/E (15.2x vs 34.8x)
- 12.7% margin vs AMZN's 12.2%
- 0.9% yield; 1-year raise streak; the other pay no meaningful dividend
AMZN is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and growth exposure.
- beta 1.51
- Rev growth 12.4%, EPS growth 29.7%, 3Y rev CAGR 11.7%
- 7.0% 10Y total return vs GTX's 42.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 12.4% revenue growth vs GTX's 3.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (15.2x vs 34.8x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 12.7% margin vs AMZN's 12.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.51 vs GTX's 1.51 | |
| Dividends | 0.9% yield; 1-year raise streak; the other pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +141.3% vs AMZN's +43.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 14.3% ROA vs AMZN's 11.5%, ROIC 59.1% vs 14.7% |
GTX vs AMZN — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
GTX vs AMZN — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — GTX and AMZN each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AMZN is the larger business by revenue, generating $742.8B annually — 274.5x GTX's $2.7B. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from 12.7% (GTX) to 12.2% (AMZN). On growth, AMZN holds the edge at +16.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $2.7B | $742.8B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $440M | $155.9B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $343M | $90.8B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $409M | -$2.5B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +31.6% | +50.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +13.4% | +11.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +12.7% | +12.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +15.1% | -0.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -100.0% | +16.6% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +63.3% | +74.8% |
Valuation Metrics
GTX leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 17.8x trailing earnings, GTX trades at a 53% valuation discount to AMZN's 37.8x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), AMZN offers better value at 1.35x vs GTX's 2.32x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $5.1B | $2.92T |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $6.4B | $2.98T |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 17.78x | 37.82x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 15.24x | 34.77x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 2.32x | 1.35x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 10.84x | 20.47x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.42x | 4.07x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 7.14x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 14.93x | 378.98x |
Profitability & Efficiency
GTX leads this category, winning 6 of 7 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), GTX scores 7/9 vs AMZN's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | +23.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +14.3% | +11.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +59.1% | +14.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +49.3% | +15.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.37x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.3B | $66.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $179M | $86.8B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.5B | $153.0B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 3.60x | 39.96x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
GTX leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in GTX five years ago would be worth $48,187 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $16,476 for AMZN. Over the past 12 months, GTX leads with a +141.3% total return vs AMZN's +43.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors GTX at 50.2% vs AMZN's 36.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +56.0% | +19.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +141.3% | +43.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +238.7% | +156.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +381.9% | +64.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +42.7% | +697.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +50.2% | +36.8% |
Risk & Volatility
AMZN leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
AMZN is the less volatile stock with a 1.51 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than GTX's 1.51 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.51x | 1.51x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $27.79 | $278.56 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $9.57 | $185.01 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +97.3% | +97.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 80.4 | 81.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.2M | 45.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates GTX as "Hold" and AMZN as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 13.1% upside for AMZN (target: $307) vs -16.8% for GTX (target: $23). GTX is the only dividend payer here at 0.94% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $22.50 | $306.77 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 7 | 94 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.9% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.26 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +4.1% | 0.0% |
GTX leads in 3 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Profitability & Efficiency). AMZN leads in 1 (Risk & Volatility). 1 tied.
GTX vs AMZN: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GTX or AMZN a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Amazon.
com, Inc. (AMZN) is the stronger pick with 12. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 3. 1% for Garrett Motion Inc. (GTX). Garrett Motion Inc. (GTX) offers the better valuation at 17. 8x trailing P/E (15. 2x 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 — GTX or AMZN?
On trailing P/E, Garrett Motion Inc.
(GTX) is the cheapest at 17. 8x versus Amazon. com, Inc. at 37. 8x. On forward P/E, Garrett Motion Inc. is actually cheaper at 15. 2x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Amazon. com, Inc. wins at 1. 24x versus Garrett Motion Inc. 's 1. 98x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — GTX or AMZN?
Over the past 5 years, Garrett Motion Inc.
(GTX) delivered a total return of +381. 9%, compared to +64. 8% for Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AMZN returned +697. 8% versus GTX's +42. 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 — GTX or AMZN?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Amazon.
com, Inc. (AMZN) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 51β versus Garrett Motion Inc. 's 1. 51β — meaning GTX is approximately 0% more volatile than AMZN relative to the S&P 500.
05Which is growing faster — GTX or AMZN?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Amazon.
com, Inc. (AMZN) is pulling ahead at 12. 4% versus 3. 1% for Garrett Motion Inc. (GTX). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Amazon. com, Inc. grew EPS 29. 7% year-over-year, compared to 20. 6% for Garrett Motion Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, AMZN leads at 11. 7% 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 — GTX or AMZN?
Amazon.
com, Inc. (AMZN) is the more profitable company, earning 10. 8% net margin versus 8. 6% for Garrett Motion Inc. — meaning it keeps 10. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: GTX leads at 13. 8% versus 11. 2% for AMZN. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AMZN leads at 50. 3%, 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 GTX or AMZN 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. 24x versus Garrett Motion Inc. 's 1. 98x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Garrett Motion Inc. (GTX) trades at 15. 2x forward P/E versus 34. 8x for Amazon. com, Inc. — 19. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for AMZN: 13. 1% to $306. 77.
08Which pays a better dividend — GTX or AMZN?
In this comparison, GTX (0.
9% yield) pays a dividend. AMZN does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is GTX or AMZN better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Garrett Motion Inc.
(GTX) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (0. 9% yield). Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN) carries a higher beta of 1. 51 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (GTX: +42. 7%, AMZN: +697. 8%), 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 GTX and AMZN?
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: GTX is a small-cap deep-value stock; AMZN is a mega-cap quality compounder stock. GTX pays a dividend while AMZN 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.