KXIN vs CVNA vs VRM vs KMX

For growth investors, Carvana Co.

(CVNA) is the stronger pick with 48. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -100. 0% for Kaixin Auto Holdings (KXIN). CarMax, Inc. (KMX) offers the better valuation at 11. 6x trailing P/E (14. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Carvana Co. (CVNA) a "Hold" — based on 44 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, CarMax, Inc.

(KMX) is the cheapest at 11. 6x versus Carvana Co. at 44. 9x. On forward P/E, CarMax, Inc. is actually cheaper at 14. 6x.

Over the past 5 years, Carvana Co.

(CVNA) delivered a total return of +35. 1%, compared to -100. 0% for Kaixin Auto Holdings (KXIN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CVNA returned +34. 1% versus KXIN's -100. 0%. 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), CarMax, Inc.

(KMX) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 32β versus Carvana Co. 's 2. 14β — meaning CVNA is approximately 62% more volatile than KMX relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Kaixin Auto Holdings (KXIN) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 8% versus 3% for CarMax, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Carvana Co.

(CVNA) is pulling ahead at 48. 6% versus -100. 0% for Kaixin Auto Holdings (KXIN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Carvana Co. grew EPS 431. 4% year-over-year, compared to 6. 3% for CarMax, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CVNA leads at 14. 3% 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.

Carvana Co.

(CVNA) is the more profitable company, earning 6. 9% net margin versus -694. 9% for Kaixin Auto Holdings — meaning it keeps 6. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CVNA leads at 9. 3% versus -303. 1% for KXIN. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — VRM leads at 100. 0%, 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.

On forward earnings alone, CarMax, Inc.

(KMX) trades at 14. 6x forward P/E versus 50. 0x for Carvana Co. — 35. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CVNA: 27. 7% to $484. 00.

None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.

All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, CarMax, Inc.

(KMX) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding. Kaixin Auto Holdings (KXIN) carries a higher beta of 2. 11 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (KMX: -21. 8%, KXIN: -100. 0%), 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: KXIN is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CVNA is a mid-cap high-growth stock; VRM is a small-cap quality compounder stock; KMX is a small-cap deep-value 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.