BorgWarner holds the cleaner structural position, with stability as the main driver and valuation adding further support. On the market side, BorgWarner is in better shape — its trend is intact while Aptiv's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — BorgWarner's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The clearest score difference appears in stability. BorgWarner Inc. leads by 9 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Auto Parts
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. APTV and BWA share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Aptiv and BorgWarner each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Score differences across key dimensions.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The two profiles are relatively close, but the price setup still leans toward BorgWarner Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The stability gap is wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
BorgWarner Inc. also shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which makes the lead look less detached from the underlying business picture.
Stability is the clearest driver, and valuation also supports BorgWarner Inc.'s broader structural position.
Break down the APTV vs BWA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how APTV and BWA each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.