Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. XPEV scored 25.4, ALV scored 63.2 — ALV leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. ALV's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but XPEV's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
XPEV
XPeng Inc.
Auto Manufacturers · Quality-Growth
25.4
$9.90 · $9.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
37.8
ALV leads
ALV
Autoliv, Inc.
Auto Parts · Quality-Growth
63.2
$109.76 · $8.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthXPEV+87.7%
Strongest balance sheetALV0.88
Highest qualityALV81 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueXPEV-41%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
XPEV
stronger →← stronger
ALV
28
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
81
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
21
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
63
ALV is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
XPEV
ALV
$735mC+
FCF
$757mC+
+87.7%A
Rev
+5.9%C+
0.99B
D/E
0.88B
0.8xB+
P/S
—
—
PEG
0.85B+
—
P/E
12.9xA-
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
XPEV
ALV
41% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
14% below
~2%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~2%/yr
+31%
1-yr DCF upside
+10%
+71%
5-yr DCF upside
+16%
+150%
10-yr DCF upside
+24%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
XPEV
Why this score
Cyclical growth
Foreign reporter (CNY)
ALV
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Cyclical growth
The companies
XPEVXPeng Inc.
Auto Manufacturers · $9.90 · beta 1.07
Why now
Auto Manufacturers · market cap $9.5b. Down 65% from 52-week high of $28.23 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +88% — in hypergrowth territory. 25 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $18.46 (implying +86% upside).
Moat
Turnaround / out-of-favor name — GAAP-unprofitable for now, so the durability case is forward-looking: it rests on a recovery (margin normalization, a cyclical upturn or restructuring) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than on current reported results.
Risk
Currently unprofitable (margin -1.5%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. Down 65% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. ROE -4% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
ALVAutoliv, Inc.
Auto Parts · $109.76 · beta 1.40
Why now
Auto Parts · market cap $8.0b. 17% off the 52-week high of $132.17. PEG 0.85 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 16 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $134.31 (implying +22% upside).
Moat
ROE 26% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 118% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where XPEV and ALV diverge
On the headline score the gap is 37.8 points in favor of ALV. The widest single difference is Quality, where ALV leads by 52.7 points.
QualityXPEV 27.9 · ALV 80.6ALV +52.7
ValueXPEV 21.4 · ALV 62.6ALV +41.2
GrowthXPEV 50.0 · ALV 50.0level
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is ALV or XPEV the better stock?
ALV scores higher: ALV 63.2, XPEV 25.4 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do ALV and XPEV differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where ALV leads by 53 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. ALV also leads value, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are ALV and XPEV scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.