Tesla, Inc. (TSLA)vs F Holdings, Inc. (F)

Quick verdict

Tesla, Inc. (TSLA) and F Holdings, Inc. (F) appeal to different investors. On our six-factor framework, TSLA scores 2.5 and F scores 3.5. F looks cheaper on the multiples that matter, while F grows faster and TSLA earns higher returns on capital. Overall, F edges this comparison, but the right pick depends on whether you prioritise value, growth, income or balance-sheet safety.

2-year relative performance

At-a-glance comparison

Business model and revenue mix

Tesla, Inc. operates in Auto Manufacturers (Consumer Cyclical), while F Holdings, Inc. sits in Semiconductors (Technology). The two operate in different sectors, so cyclicality and end-market exposure differ — factor that into any portfolio overlap. TSLA carries a beta of 1.25 versus 1.54 for F, meaning F has historically been the more volatile of the two.

Valuation

On valuation, F is the cheaper stock. TSLA trades on a forward P/E of 26.25 and EV/EBITDA of 11.17, against 30.96 and 7.97 for F. Price-to-sales is 13.28 vs 4.13, and free-cash-flow yield is 4.5% vs 6.4%. A higher multiple is only justified if the company can sustain faster growth or wider margins, which is exactly what the next sections test.

Growth profile

F is the faster grower. TSLA has compounded revenue at 4.0% over three years with EPS growth of 5.0%, while F has delivered 22.7% revenue and 26.5% EPS growth. Growth like this is the single biggest driver of long-term returns, but it also tends to come with a richer valuation, so it must be weighed against the multiples above.

Profitability and quality

On profitability and quality, TSLA is stronger. TSLA posts a 28.6% operating margin, 23.0% return on equity and 24.1% return on invested capital. F posts 29.3%, 14.7% and 30.3% respectively. Return on invested capital above roughly 15% is a hallmark of a durable competitive advantage, so this metric deserves particular attention.

Balance-sheet risk

TSLA has the safer balance sheet. TSLA carries net-debt/EBITDA of 1.01x with a current ratio of 3.57, versus 3.57x and 3.39 for F. Lower leverage gives a company more room to invest through a downturn and reduces the risk of dilution or distress.

Price performance and shareholder returns

Over the past year TSLA returned 19.9% against 52.3% for F; on a three-year annualised basis it is 47.7% vs 22.3%. TSLA yields 0.4% and F yields 0.0%. Past performance never guarantees future results, but the multi-year track record shows how the market has rewarded each business so far.

Which stock fits which investor

For value-oriented investors, F is the better fit on today's multiples. Growth investors will likely prefer F, which is expanding faster. Income investors should lean toward TSLA for its higher shareholder yield, while investors who prize quality-at-a-reasonable-price will favour TSLA for its superior returns on capital. This is a comparison of facts, not a recommendation — your time horizon, risk tolerance and existing holdings should drive the final decision.

• Value: F
• Growth: F
• Income: TSLA
• Quality: TSLA

Frequently asked questions

Is TSLA or F the better buy right now?

Neither is universally "better." TSLA scores 2.5 and F scores 3.5 on our six-factor framework. F is cheaper, F grows faster, and TSLA is higher quality — so the right pick depends on your objective.

Which stock is cheaper, TSLA or F?

F is the cheaper stock across forward P/E (26.25 vs 30.96), EV/EBITDA (11.17 vs 7.97) and price-to-sales (13.28 vs 4.13).

Which has grown faster, TSLA or F?

F has the stronger growth profile, with three-year revenue CAGR of 4.0% for TSLA versus 22.7% for F.

Which stock pays a bigger dividend?

TSLA yields 0.4% and F yields 0.0%, so neither clearly is the stronger income choice.

Related comparisons

• AAPL vs TSLA
• TSLA vs AMD
• TSLA vs AMZN
• TSLA vs BABA
• TSLA vs LCID
• TSLA vs NVDA