RUSHA vs AN

For growth investors, AutoNation, Inc.

(AN) is the stronger pick with 3. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -4. 7% for Rush Enterprises, Inc. (RUSHA). AutoNation, Inc. (AN) offers the better valuation at 12. 0x trailing P/E (9. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate AutoNation, Inc. (AN) a "Buy" — based on 34 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, AutoNation, Inc.

(AN) is the cheapest at 12. 0x versus Rush Enterprises, Inc. at 21. 8x. On forward P/E, AutoNation, Inc. is actually cheaper at 9. 7x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: AutoNation, Inc. wins at 0. 31x versus Rush Enterprises, Inc. 's 1. 86x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Rush Enterprises, Inc.

(RUSHA) delivered a total return of +125. 2%, compared to +94. 1% for AutoNation, Inc. (AN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RUSHA returned +812. 3% versus AN's +324. 6%. 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), AutoNation, Inc.

(AN) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 85β versus Rush Enterprises, Inc. 's 0. 98β — meaning RUSHA is approximately 15% more volatile than AN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Rush Enterprises, Inc. (RUSHA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 70% versus 4% for AutoNation, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), AutoNation, Inc.

(AN) is pulling ahead at 3. 2% versus -4. 7% for Rush Enterprises, Inc. (RUSHA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: AutoNation, Inc. grew EPS 0. 7% year-over-year, compared to -12. 1% for Rush Enterprises, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, RUSHA leads at 1. 5% 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.

Rush Enterprises, Inc.

(RUSHA) is the more profitable company, earning 3. 5% net margin versus 2. 3% for AutoNation, Inc. — meaning it keeps 3. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: RUSHA leads at 5. 3% versus 4. 8% for AN. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RUSHA leads at 18. 7%, 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.

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, AutoNation, Inc. (AN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 31x versus Rush Enterprises, Inc. 's 1. 86x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, AutoNation, Inc. (AN) trades at 9. 7x forward P/E versus 19. 2x for Rush Enterprises, Inc. — 9. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for AN: 20. 8% to $248. 00.

In this comparison, RUSHA (1.

0% yield) pays a dividend. AN does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Rush Enterprises, Inc.

(RUSHA) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 98), 1. 0% yield, +812. 3% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (RUSHA: +812. 3%, AN: +324. 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.

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: RUSHA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; AN is a small-cap deep-value stock. RUSHA pays a dividend while AN 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.