This updated analysis from October 28, 2025, provides a multifaceted examination of Rush Enterprises, Inc. (RUSHB), assessing its business model, financial health, past performance, and future growth to determine a fair value. We benchmark RUSHB against key competitors such as Penske Automotive Group, Inc. (PAG), Lithia Motors, Inc. (LAD), and AutoNation, Inc. (AN), synthesizing all findings through the value investing principles of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger.
The outlook for Rush Enterprises is mixed, balancing defensive strengths with cyclical headwinds. Its primary advantage is a massive parts and service network that generates highly profitable, recurring revenue. This moat provides stable margins and strong free cash flow, offering a cushion during downturns. However, the company is highly exposed to the slowing North American freight market. This has led to declining revenues and highlights the risk from its significant debt load. While the stock appears fairly valued, its performance has lagged peers. This makes it a cautious hold for investors until the freight cycle shows signs of recovery.
US: NASDAQ
Rush Enterprises, Inc. operates a straightforward yet powerful business model centered on being the premier integrated solutions provider for the commercial vehicle industry in North America. As the continent's largest network of commercial vehicle dealerships, Rush doesn't just sell new and used trucks from leading brands like Peterbilt, International, and Ford; it aims to support that vehicle throughout its entire operational life. Its core strategy is to be a 'one-stop-shop' for its customers, who are primarily commercial fleets. This model encompasses four key revenue streams: Commercial Vehicle Sales, the initial entry point for customers; Parts and Service, the high-margin, recurring revenue engine; Lease and Rental solutions, for fleet flexibility; and Finance and Insurance (F&I) products. By integrating these offerings, Rush creates a sticky ecosystem that maximizes the lifetime value of each customer relationship, making it inconvenient and costly for clients to switch to a patchwork of competitors.
The largest segment by revenue is Commercial Vehicle Sales, which brought in $4.76 billion, or approximately 62% of total TTM revenue. This division involves the sale of new heavy-duty (Class 8), medium-duty, and light-duty commercial trucks, as well as used vehicles. The North American commercial vehicle market is a massive, multi-hundred-billion-dollar industry, but it is notoriously cyclical, with demand tightly linked to freight volumes, industrial production, and overall economic health. Profit margins on new truck sales are relatively thin, and competition is intense from other large, publicly-traded dealership groups like Penske Automotive Group and Lithia Motors, as well as numerous smaller, private regional dealers. Rush's primary competitive advantages here are its immense scale—it is the world's largest dealer for Peterbilt trucks—and its exclusive territorial rights for certain brands. This scale gives it superior purchasing power and inventory availability. Customers range from large national shipping carriers to regional construction companies and municipalities, who purchase vehicles costing upwards of $150,000. While a truck sale itself has low stickiness, it serves the crucial purpose of feeding vehicles into Rush's far more profitable and defensible after-sales network.
The heart of Rush's competitive moat lies in its Parts and Service business. This segment generated $2.50 billion, or roughly 33% of TTM revenue, and is significantly more profitable and less cyclical than vehicle sales. The commercial vehicle aftermarket in North America is a vast and stable industry, as the millions of trucks in operation constantly require maintenance and repair to stay on the road. Rush competes with other original equipment manufacturer (OEM) dealers and a fragmented landscape of independent repair shops. Its unique advantage is its coast-to-coast network of Rush Truck Centers, which allows a national fleet operator to receive consistent, high-quality service regardless of location. This network effect is powerful; the more service centers Rush operates, the more valuable the network becomes to a customer managing a geographically dispersed fleet. For these customers, who prioritize vehicle 'uptime' above all else, the reliability and convenience of Rush's network create extremely high switching costs. The hassle and risk of managing multiple independent service providers make the integrated Rush solution highly attractive, fostering deep customer loyalty.
Supporting its core sales and service operations are the Lease and Rental and Finance and Insurance segments. The Lease and Rental division contributed $366.92 million (~5% of revenue) and offers full-service leasing, rentals, and contract maintenance. This provides customers with fleet flexibility without the large capital expenditure of a purchase and generates stable, contractual recurring revenue for Rush. While it competes with giants like Ryder and Penske, Rush uses this service to further embed itself with its customers, preventing them from seeking leasing solutions from a competitor who might also lure away their service business. Finance and Insurance is the smallest segment, with just $21.22 million (~0.3%) in revenue. It serves as a convenience for customers by arranging financing and selling ancillary products. While this segment carries very high-profit margins, its minimal contribution to the overall business indicates it is a non-core, supplementary service rather than a strategic pillar or source of competitive advantage. It simply rounds out the 'one-stop-shop' offering.
In conclusion, Rush Enterprises possesses a wide and durable competitive moat built on scale and integration. The company strategically uses its lower-margin, cyclical truck sales business to acquire customers and then captures long-term, high-margin recurring revenue through its unparalleled parts and service network. This model's resilience is best demonstrated by its 'dealership absorption ratio' of 132.2%, which means its after-sales gross profit covers 132% of the entire company's fixed operating costs. This exceptional profitability engine allows Rush to weather the inevitable downturns in the trucking cycle far better than its competitors.
The business model is not without risks. It is heavily dependent on the health of the North American freight and industrial economy. Furthermore, the long-term industry shift toward electric, hydrogen, and autonomous vehicles represents both a threat and an opportunity. This transition will require significant capital investment in new technician training, tooling, and infrastructure, and could disrupt the traditional parts market. However, Rush's industry-leading scale, strong cash flow, and deep relationships with OEMs position it better than almost any smaller competitor to navigate this technological evolution. The durability of its moat will ultimately hinge on management's ability to successfully reinvest and adapt its formidable service network to the trucks of the future.
From a quick health check, Rush Enterprises is clearly profitable, reporting a net income of $66.69 million in its most recent quarter (Q3 2025). Importantly, this profit is backed by even stronger cash generation, with cash from operations reaching an impressive $367.78 million. This shows the company's earnings are not just on paper but are translating into real cash. The balance sheet is on a watchlist; while not immediately risky, it carries a significant total debt load of $1.52 billion. The main near-term stress signal is a slight decline in both revenue and operating margins over the last two quarters compared to the prior full year, suggesting the company is facing some market headwinds.
Looking at the income statement, profitability is steady but showing signs of pressure. Full-year 2024 revenue was $7.8 billion, while the last two quarters came in at $1.93 billion (Q2 2025) and $1.88 billion (Q3 2025), indicating a mild slowdown. Gross margins have held up well, hovering around 19.7%, which is a good sign of sourcing and initial pricing discipline. However, the operating margin has compressed, falling from 5.99% in FY 2024 to 5.33% in the latest quarter. For investors, this trend is important because it suggests that while the company can maintain its markup on vehicles and parts, its general operating costs (like salaries and rent) are eating up a larger slice of profits as sales soften.
To check if the company's reported earnings are 'real,' we look at how well they convert to cash. In Rush's case, the quality is very high. In the most recent quarter, cash from operations ($367.78 million) was more than five times its net income ($66.69 million). This huge positive difference is primarily explained by strong working capital management. Specifically, the company reduced its inventory by nearly $200 million, turning unsold trucks and parts directly into cash. This is a crucial positive signal, as it shows management can effectively manage its largest asset to ensure liquidity. Free cash flow (cash from operations minus capital expenditures) was also very strong at $271.23 million, confirming that the business is generating more than enough cash to run itself and reward investors.
The company's balance sheet resilience can be described as adequate but requires monitoring. On the liquidity front, its current ratio of 1.37 indicates it has $1.37 in short-term assets for every $1.00 of short-term liabilities, which is a decent cushion. However, much of this is tied up in inventory. Leverage is the main point of concern, with total debt at $1.52 billion and a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.68. While this is a substantial amount of debt, the company has shown it can manage it, reducing total debt by over $200 million in the last quarter alone. Given the strong cash flow, the balance sheet appears safe for now, but it's on a watchlist because high debt in a cyclical industry can become problematic if the market turns down sharply.
Rush's cash flow engine appears to be running effectively at the moment. The trend in cash from operations (CFO) is positive, increasing from $227.64 million in Q2 to $367.78 million in Q3. The company continues to invest in its business, with capital expenditures (capex) of around $100 million per quarter, likely for facility maintenance and upgrades. After these investments, the company has used its free cash flow wisely. In the last quarter, the primary uses of cash were paying down debt ($232 million net reduction) and paying dividends to shareholders ($14.8 million). This disciplined approach—strengthening the balance sheet while returning capital to shareholders—shows that cash generation currently looks dependable and is being allocated prudently.
From a shareholder's perspective, Rush's capital allocation is currently sustainable and friendly. The company pays a regular quarterly dividend, recently $0.19 per share, which is easily covered by its free cash flow. Its annual payout ratio is a conservative 22%, meaning it retains the vast majority of its earnings to reinvest in the business or pay down debt. Furthermore, the company has been reducing its share count through buybacks, which increases each remaining shareholder's ownership stake and can help support the stock price. In the most recent period, cash was directed toward debt reduction and dividends, which is a healthy and sustainable combination that balances financial discipline with shareholder returns.
In summary, Rush Enterprises' financial statements reveal several key strengths and risks. The biggest strengths are its robust operating cash flow, as seen in the $367.78 million generated in Q3, and its disciplined capital allocation, using that cash to pay down $232 million in debt while maintaining dividends. On the other hand, the key risks are the large absolute debt level of $1.52 billion and the significant inventory of $1.66 billion, which could face valuation writedowns in an economic downturn. Additionally, the recent compression in operating margins from 6% to 5.3% warrants attention. Overall, the company's financial foundation looks stable today, primarily because its strong cash generation is effectively managing the risks on its balance sheet.
Over the past five years (FY2020-FY2024), Rush Enterprises' performance reflects a period of significant, albeit cyclical, expansion. The five-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for revenue was approximately 13.3%, showcasing the company's ability to capitalize on strong market conditions. However, momentum has slowed recently, with the three-year revenue CAGR (FY2022-FY2024) dropping to about 4.8%, culminating in a -1.52% revenue decline in the latest fiscal year. This deceleration indicates that the post-pandemic boom in commercial vehicles is likely moderating.
A similar trend is visible in profitability. The average operating margin over the last five years was approximately 5.75%, but the more recent three-year average improved to 6.51%, peaking at a strong 7.09% in FY2022. This suggests better cost control and pricing power during the upcycle. However, the latest fiscal year saw the operating margin contract to 5.99%, reinforcing the theme of a cyclical peak having passed. This pattern of rapid expansion followed by a moderate cooling off is a key historical characteristic for investors to understand.
From an income statement perspective, Rush's history is one of impressive but volatile growth. Revenue surged from $4.74 billion in FY2020 to a peak of $7.93 billion in FY2023 before a slight pullback to $7.81 billion in FY2024. This growth was highly profitable, with operating margins expanding significantly from 3.23% in FY2020 to a more robust range of 6-7% between FY2021 and FY2024. Earnings per share (EPS) followed this trajectory, climbing from $1.40 to a high of $4.71 in FY2022, before settling at $3.85 in FY2024. While the overall five-year trend is strongly positive, the annual growth figures have been erratic, with EPS growth swinging from +104% in FY2021 to -10% in FY2024, highlighting the business's sensitivity to economic cycles.
The balance sheet reveals that this growth was capital-intensive and funded with increasing leverage. Total assets grew from $2.99 billion in FY2020 to $4.62 billion in FY2024. This expansion was supported by a rise in total debt from $1.22 billion to $1.73 billion over the same period. A significant portion of this was investment in inventory, which more than doubled from $858 million to $1.79 billion. While the debt-to-equity ratio remained manageable, fluctuating between 0.79 and 0.96, the increasing reliance on debt and working capital to fuel sales presents a risk. The company's financial flexibility has been stable but has not materially strengthened, as growth consumed capital.
Cash flow performance has been the most inconsistent aspect of Rush's history. While the company consistently generated positive cash from operations (CFO), the amounts have been highly volatile, ranging from a high of $763 million in FY2020 to a low of $294 million in FY2022. More importantly, free cash flow (FCF) has been unreliable and has often lagged net income, turning negative in FY2023 at -$73.17 million. This was driven by heavy capital expenditures, which rose from $136 million in FY2020 to $433 million in FY2024, and significant investments in inventory. This historical disconnect between reported earnings and actual cash generation is a critical point for investors, as it suggests that profit growth did not always translate into available cash.
Despite volatile cash flows, Rush Enterprises has maintained a shareholder-friendly capital return policy. The company has paid a consistent and growing dividend. The annual dividend per share increased steadily each year, rising from $0.273 in FY2020 to $0.70 in FY2024, representing a significant increase over the period. In addition to dividends, the company has actively repurchased its own shares. The number of shares outstanding declined from 82 million at the end of FY2020 to 79 million by the end of FY2024, indicating a net reduction through buybacks. These actions signal management's confidence in the long-term business model.
From a shareholder's perspective, these capital actions appear to have been both productive and sustainable. The share repurchases were accretive, as EPS grew from $1.40 to $3.85 while the share count fell, amplifying per-share returns for remaining investors. The dividend also appears affordable. Even in a weaker cash flow year like FY2023, the $50.58 million paid in dividends was covered by operating cash flow of $295.71 million. In FY2024, dividends of $55.51 million were a small fraction of the $619.55 million in CFO. This low payout ratio (typically under 25%) provides a substantial cushion for future payments. Overall, the company's capital allocation has balanced reinvestment for growth with direct returns to shareholders.
In conclusion, Rush Enterprises' historical record is one of proficiently managed cyclical growth. The company successfully expanded its top and bottom lines over the past five years, creating value for shareholders. Its single biggest historical strength was its ability to improve profitability during a strong market cycle. However, the primary weakness has been the inconsistency of its cash flow generation, which has been volatile and lagged earnings due to heavy reinvestment needs. The historical record supports confidence in the company's ability to execute, but it also serves as a clear reminder of the business's inherent cyclicality and capital intensity.
The North American commercial vehicle industry is poised for significant change over the next 3-5 years, driven by a confluence of regulatory mandates, technological evolution, and economic cycles. The market, which has been working through a period of normalized demand after post-pandemic highs, is expected to see modest growth, with some estimates projecting a CAGR of 2-4%. A primary driver of change will be the implementation of stricter emissions standards, notably the EPA's 2027 regulations, which will compel fleet owners to upgrade older, less efficient vehicles. This creates a predictable replacement cycle that can boost new truck demand. Simultaneously, the industry is at the nascent stage of a major technological shift towards alternative fuels, including battery-electric (BEV) and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. While adoption will be gradual, the need for new infrastructure, specialized tooling, and technician training will begin to reshape the service landscape.
Catalysts for increased demand include potential government incentives for green technologies and any significant federal infrastructure spending, which directly boosts freight volumes and the need for trucks. Conversely, economic slowdowns remain a persistent threat, capable of causing fleets to delay capital-intensive vehicle purchases. The competitive intensity in the dealership space is high, but the barriers to entry are rising. The capital required to build a nationwide service network and invest in the technology needed to service modern, complex trucks is immense. This trend favors large, well-capitalized players like Rush Enterprises and makes it harder for smaller, independent service shops to compete, likely leading to further industry consolidation over the next five years.
Rush's largest segment, Commercial Vehicle Sales ($4.76 billion TTM revenue), is currently constrained by normalizing freight demand and higher interest rates, which increase the cost of financing for fleet operators. Consumption is directly tied to fleet capital expenditure budgets. Over the next 3-5 years, consumption is expected to increase, driven largely by the non-discretionary replacement cycle for aging trucks and the need to comply with new emissions rules. The mix will likely shift towards more technologically advanced diesel models and a slowly growing number of alternative fuel vehicles. Catalysts include freight market recovery and OEM production stability. In the ~$150 billion North American commercial truck market, Rush competes with other large dealer networks like Penske Automotive and Lithia Motors, as well as regional players. Customers often choose based on brand availability (Rush is the top Peterbilt dealer), inventory, and the quality of the attached service network. Rush outperforms when it can leverage its one-stop-shop model, converting a vehicle sale into a long-term service relationship. The number of large, publicly-traded dealership groups has slowly increased through consolidation, a trend likely to continue due to scale economics. A primary future risk is a severe economic recession (medium probability), which would directly lead to widespread order cancellations and delayed purchases by fleets, significantly impacting revenue and profitability in this cyclical segment.
The Parts and Service division ($2.50 billion TTM revenue) is the company's growth engine and competitive moat. Current consumption is high and stable, limited only by physical service bay capacity and the availability of skilled technicians. Usage intensity is driven by the sheer number of vehicles in operation that require ongoing maintenance and repair. Over the next 3-5 years, this segment's consumption will steadily increase. The primary driver is the rising complexity of vehicles; advanced diagnostics, emissions control systems, and driver-assist technologies require specialized tools and expertise that independent shops often lack. This will push a greater share of the ~$150 billion North American vehicle aftermarket towards OEM-affiliated dealers. The service mix will shift towards higher-margin, technology-based diagnostics and repairs. Rush's nationwide network is a powerful competitive advantage against fragmented local competitors, as it offers consistent service for national fleets. The company will outperform as long as it invests in technician training and facility upgrades. The key risk is a persistent shortage of qualified technicians (high probability), which could constrain service capacity, increase labor costs, and limit growth even when demand is strong.
Rush's Lease and Rental business ($366.92 million TTM revenue) offers fleets an alternative to direct ownership. Current consumption is moderate, constrained by intense competition from established giants like Ryder and Penske, who have massive scale in this specific vertical. Over the next 3-5 years, demand for leasing could increase as economic uncertainty encourages fleets to preserve capital. Furthermore, the introduction of new technologies like electric trucks may lead customers to lease vehicles initially to test their viability before making a large purchase commitment. This shift towards flexible fleet management is a potential catalyst. However, Rush is unlikely to win significant share from the market leaders, who compete aggressively on price and have deeper specialization in logistics services. The number of major players in full-service leasing is small and stable due to the enormous capital required for the vehicle assets. A medium probability risk for Rush is that larger competitors use aggressive lease pricing to attract customers, potentially luring away some of Rush's integrated sales and service business over time.
Finally, the Finance and Insurance (F&I) segment is a minor contributor ($21.22 million TTM revenue) and not a current growth driver. Its consumption is limited because it is treated as an ancillary service rather than a core profit center, as evidenced by a gross profit per unit of ~$621, well below automotive retail benchmarks. It is unlikely this segment will see significant growth in the next 3-5 years without a strategic shift in focus from management. Compared to competitors like Lithia, which have highly developed F&I operations, Rush is leaving a high-margin opportunity underdeveloped. The primary risk here is not financial loss but opportunity cost; by not optimizing F&I penetration, Rush forgoes a source of high-margin, capital-light earnings that could bolster its overall profitability. Given its small size, this risk has a low impact on the overall company's growth trajectory but represents a clear area for potential improvement.
The most significant long-term factor shaping Rush's future growth is the industry's transition to alternative fuels. While full-scale adoption is likely beyond the 3-5 year horizon, the necessary investments in charging infrastructure, specialized tools for high-voltage systems, and technician retraining must be made now. This presents both a risk and an opportunity. The capital expenditure will be substantial, but it also raises the barrier to entry for the service business even higher. Rush's scale and strong balance sheet position it better than almost any smaller competitor to make these investments. Successfully navigating this transition will be key to preserving and extending its service-based competitive moat into the next decade, ensuring it remains the go-to provider for fleets regardless of what powers their trucks.
As of 2025-12-19, with a close of $58.52, Rush Enterprises commands a market capitalization of approximately $4.5 billion. The stock is currently positioned firmly in the upper third of its 52-week range ($47.71 - $61.55), indicating that the market has recognized its recent operational strengths. For a company like Rush, the most telling valuation metrics are its P/E ratio, which currently stands at a TTM of ~17.4x, a forward P/E of ~15.1x, and its dividend yield of ~1.3%. These earnings-based multiples are critical because, despite cyclical sales, the company has consistently generated profits. The dividend provides a tangible return to shareholders and signals management's confidence. The company's extensive and highly profitable parts and service segment, which generates over 60% of gross profit, justifies a stable valuation and provides a cushion during downturns in truck sales.
A precise discounted cash flow (DCF) model is challenging due to the volatility of Rush's free cash flow (FCF), which has historically swung dramatically due to large investments in inventory. However, a simpler free cash flow yield method suggests an intrinsic value range of $50–$65 per share, placing the current stock price squarely in the middle of its fair value range. This method, which uses a normalized FCF of around $350 million and a required return range of 7.0% to 9.0%, highlights that the business's worth is tied to its ability to generate cash. The current price reflects a market expectation of about an 8.0% cash flow yield, which seems appropriate for a cyclical leader with a strong service moat.
From a multiples perspective, Rush's current P/E ratio of approximately 17.4x is comfortably in the middle of its historical range of ~8x to ~28x, suggesting the stock is not over or undervalued relative to its own past. While Rush appears more expensive than a peer like Penske Automotive Group (PAG), which trades at a P/E of ~11.7x, this premium is justified by Rush's superior profitability, higher-margin service business, and stronger balance sheet. Combining these different valuation signals—intrinsic value, historical multiples, and peer comparisons—converges on a final fair value estimate of around $58 per share. This indicates the stock is currently fairly valued, with limited upside or downside from its present price.
Warren Buffett would view Rush Enterprises as a high-quality, understandable business operating in a cyclical but essential industry. He would be highly attracted to the company's durable competitive advantage, which stems from its dominant Peterbilt dealership network and, more importantly, its high-margin, recurring parts and service business that generates predictable cash flow. The fortress-like balance sheet, with very low net debt to EBITDA of ~0.8x, and a consistently high return on equity around ~19% would be major positives, fitting his criteria for financial prudence and operational excellence. However, Buffett would remain cautious due to the inherent cyclicality of the commercial truck market, which is tied to the broader economy's health. If forced to choose the best stocks in this sector, Buffett's thesis would favor companies with low debt and high returns, ranking them: 1) Rush Enterprises (RUSHB) for its superior ~6.6% operating margin and ~0.8x leverage, 2) Penske (PAG) for its scale, despite higher ~2.2x leverage, and 3) AutoNation (AN) for its ~8.0x P/E valuation, though he'd be wary of its buyback-driven returns. Ultimately, while admiring the business quality of RUSHB, he would likely wait for a more attractive price to provide a sufficient margin of safety against a potential industry downturn. A significant price drop of 15-20% might be the catalyst needed for him to invest.
Charlie Munger would view Rush Enterprises as a quintessential high-quality business operating in a understandable, albeit cyclical, niche. He would be drawn to the company's dominant position as the largest commercial vehicle dealer network in North America, which creates a durable competitive advantage, or 'moat,' through its integrated parts and service operations. The high-margin, recurring nature of this aftermarket business, which is far more profitable than just selling new trucks, would appeal to his focus on strong unit economics. Munger would particularly admire the company's fortress-like balance sheet, evidenced by a very low net debt-to-EBITDA ratio of approximately ~0.8x, viewing it as a clear sign of prudent management that avoids unnecessary risk. While the business is subject to the freight cycle, its strong service component provides a resilient cash flow stream even during downturns. The valuation, with an EV/EBITDA multiple around ~5.0x and a P/E ratio of ~11.5x for a business generating a Return on Equity near ~19%, would likely be deemed a 'fair price for a great business'. For retail investors, Munger's takeaway would be that this is a well-managed, durable enterprise that intelligently reinvests in its core operations, making it a solid long-term compounder. His decision would hinge on the long-term sustainability of the service moat as vehicle technology evolves; a clear strategy for servicing electric and hydrogen trucks would solidify his conviction.
Bill Ackman would view Rush Enterprises as a high-quality, simple, and predictable business that the market is currently undervaluing. He would be highly attracted to its dominant position in the commercial vehicle market, its profitable and recurring parts and services business which generates superior operating margins around 6.6%, and its fortress-like balance sheet with very low leverage at ~0.8x net debt-to-EBITDA. The investment thesis would center on the opportunity to unlock significant shareholder value by persuading management to alter its conservative capital allocation strategy. Given the stock's low EV/EBITDA multiple of ~5.0x, Ackman would argue for using the company's balance sheet capacity to launch a substantial share buyback program, which could dramatically increase per-share value. For retail investors, the key takeaway is that RUSHB is a fundamentally strong company with a clear, catalyst-driven path to a higher valuation, making it a compelling investment target for an activist approach.
Rush Enterprises distinguishes itself in the vast auto retail and services landscape by carving out a dominant niche in the specialty and commercial dealers sub-industry. Unlike competitors who primarily focus on passenger vehicles, Rush is the largest network of commercial vehicle dealerships in North America, primarily for the Peterbilt and International brands. This sharp focus allows it to build deep expertise and strong relationships with commercial fleet operators, a customer base with very different needs than the average car buyer. The company's strategy is built on an integrated, one-stop-shop model, offering everything from new and used truck sales to financing, insurance, leasing, and, most importantly, aftermarket parts and services. This integrated approach creates significant customer loyalty and a durable competitive advantage.
The company's financial profile reflects this strategic positioning. The aftermarket parts and service business is a critical contributor, accounting for a substantial portion of gross profit at much higher margins than vehicle sales. This provides a stable and predictable earnings base that helps cushion the company during downturns in the highly cyclical market for new Class 8 trucks. This cyclicality is Rush's main vulnerability; its fortunes are closely tied to the health of the broader economy, specifically freight volumes, construction activity, and industrial production. When the economy slows, businesses delay purchasing new trucks, directly impacting Rush's top-line sales figures.
When compared to the broader auto retail industry, Rush Enterprises is a more specialized and focused entity. While competitors like Penske Automotive have a commercial truck division, it is part of a much larger and more diversified portfolio of premium passenger car dealerships. Others, like Lithia Motors and AutoNation, have almost no exposure to the commercial truck market. Consequently, RUSHB offers investors a pure-play investment in the North American commercial vehicle market. This results in higher profitability metrics, like operating margins, and a more conservative balance sheet with lower debt levels than many of its growth-by-acquisition passenger vehicle peers. The trade-off is a business model that is less diversified and more susceptible to macroeconomic headwinds that specifically impact the freight and industrial sectors.
Penske Automotive Group (PAG) and Rush Enterprises (RUSHB) both operate in the vehicle dealership space, but with different areas of focus and scale. PAG is a much larger, globally diversified retailer with a primary focus on premium passenger car brands, alongside a significant commercial truck dealership segment and a separate truck leasing business. RUSHB is a more focused, North American pure-play on commercial vehicles. This makes PAG a more diversified and resilient enterprise overall, while RUSHB offers deeper specialization and potentially higher margins within its niche. The comparison highlights a classic trade-off between PAG's scale and diversification versus RUSHB's niche leadership and operational focus.
Penske's business moat is built on immense scale and brand diversification, while Rush's is built on niche dominance and integration. For brand, PAG's strength comes from its association with luxury automotive brands (Audi, BMW, Porsche) and its own strong Penske brand in commercial leasing, while RUSHB's brand is tied to its leadership as a Peterbilt and International dealer. On switching costs, both benefit from service relationships, but RUSHB's integrated model for commercial fleets likely creates stickier customers. In terms of scale, PAG is the clear winner with ~$29B in annual revenue versus RUSHB's ~$7.9B. RUSHB has a stronger network effect within its niche, offering a comprehensive North American network of service centers for truckers, whereas PAG's is more geographically dispersed across different business lines. There are no major regulatory barriers for either. Overall, Penske’s massive scale and diversification give it a slight edge. Winner: Penske Automotive Group, Inc.
From a financial perspective, RUSHB demonstrates superior profitability and balance sheet health. On revenue growth, PAG has shown slightly stronger recent performance with a TTM growth of ~5% versus RUSHB's ~2%, driven by acquisitions. However, RUSHB consistently achieves higher operating margins at ~6.6% compared to PAG's ~5.3%, showcasing the profitability of its aftermarket-focused model. RUSHB also has a higher Return on Equity (ROE) of ~19% versus PAG's ~17%. Regarding the balance sheet, RUSHB is far less leveraged, with a net debt/EBITDA ratio of just ~0.8x compared to PAG's ~2.2x. A ratio below 3.0x is generally considered healthy, so while PAG is not over-leveraged, RUSHB is significantly more resilient. RUSHB’s stronger margins and lower debt make it the winner here. Winner: Rush Enterprises, Inc.
Historically, both companies have delivered strong results, but PAG's shareholder returns have been superior. Over the past five years, PAG has achieved an impressive Total Shareholder Return (TSR) of ~250%, significantly outperforming RUSHB's ~130%. On revenue growth, PAG's 5-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of ~9% slightly edges out RUSHB's ~8%. RUSHB has shown better margin expansion, improving its operating margin by over 200 basis points since 2019, while PAG's has also improved but by a lesser amount. In terms of risk, RUSHB's stock has exhibited slightly lower volatility (beta of ~1.2) compared to PAG's (~1.4), but PAG's superior TSR makes it the historical performance winner for shareholders. Winner: Penske Automotive Group, Inc.
Looking ahead, both companies face different growth trajectories. PAG's growth will likely be driven by continued acquisitions in the fragmented auto dealership market and expansion of its service and parts business. RUSHB's growth is more organically tied to the North American freight cycle, truck replacement demand, and its ability to continue gaining share in the high-margin aftermarket parts and services segment. Analysts project modest forward EPS growth for both, in the low single digits (2-4%), reflecting a mature and cyclical industry. The edge in future growth likely goes to PAG due to its greater diversification and proven ability to grow via acquisition, which provides more levers to pull in various economic environments compared to RUSHB's more concentrated cyclical exposure. Winner: Penske Automotive Group, Inc.
In terms of valuation, RUSHB appears more attractively priced. RUSHB trades at a forward Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratio of ~11.5x, while PAG trades at a slightly lower ~10.5x. However, on an EV/EBITDA basis, which accounts for debt, RUSHB is cheaper at ~5.0x versus PAG's ~7.5x. This difference is significant and highlights RUSHB's much stronger balance sheet. RUSHB's dividend yield of ~2.0% is slightly lower than PAG's ~2.3%, but its payout ratio is much safer. Given its superior margins and lower leverage for a similar P/E, RUSHB represents better value today. The market appears to be giving PAG a premium for its scale and diversification, but RUSHB's metrics suggest it is the more compelling value on a risk-adjusted basis. Winner: Rush Enterprises, Inc.
Winner: Rush Enterprises, Inc. over Penske Automotive Group, Inc. While PAG is a larger, more diversified, and historically faster-growing company, RUSHB wins this head-to-head comparison due to its superior financial health and more attractive current valuation. RUSHB's key strengths are its industry-leading operating margins (~6.6%) and a very conservative balance sheet with low leverage (~0.8x Net Debt/EBITDA), which provides significant resilience. Its notable weakness is its concentration in the cyclical commercial truck market. PAG's strengths are its scale and diversification, but its higher leverage (~2.2x) and lower margins make it a riskier proposition at its current valuation. For an investor seeking a financially robust company with a clear niche leadership, RUSHB presents a more compelling risk/reward profile.
Lithia Motors (LAD) represents a starkly different strategy compared to Rush Enterprises (RUSHB). Lithia is one of the largest and most aggressive consolidators in the passenger vehicle dealership space, with a massive network across North America and the UK. Its business model is centered on rapid growth through acquisition and optimizing operations across a broad portfolio of brands. RUSHB, in contrast, is a focused specialist in commercial vehicles. This comparison pits Lithia's high-growth, high-leverage acquisition model against RUSHB's steady, high-margin, niche-focused approach.
When analyzing their business moats, Lithia's is based on economies of scale, while Rush's is based on specialization. For brand, Lithia's strength is its corporate ability to acquire and integrate (Driveway is its digital brand), whereas RUSHB's brand is tied to its specialized commercial service (Rush Truck Centers). There are minimal switching costs for Lithia's retail customers, but they are higher for RUSHB's commercial fleet clients who rely on its integrated service network. In terms of scale, Lithia is a giant with revenues approaching ~$32B, dwarfing RUSHB's ~$7.9B. Lithia benefits from a broad network effect in sourcing used vehicles and sharing best practices, while RUSHB's network is deeper within its commercial niche. There are no major regulatory barriers impacting either. Lithia's sheer size and its proven acquisition engine give it the edge in moat. Winner: Lithia Motors, Inc.
Financially, the two companies are opposites. Lithia is built for growth, while Rush is built for profitability and resilience. Lithia's revenue growth has been explosive, with a 5-year CAGR of ~25% driven by acquisitions, far surpassing RUSHB's ~8%. However, this comes at the cost of profitability and a weaker balance sheet. RUSHB's operating margin of ~6.6% is significantly better than Lithia's ~4.5%. RUSHB's Return on Equity (ROE) is also stronger at ~19% versus Lithia's ~15%. The most significant difference is leverage; Lithia's net debt/EBITDA is high at ~3.1x, right at the edge of what is considered healthy, while RUSHB's is a very low ~0.8x. RUSHB's superior profitability and rock-solid balance sheet make it the clear financial winner. Winner: Rush Enterprises, Inc.
Examining past performance, Lithia has been a massive winner for shareholders who have stomached its riskier profile. Over the last five years, Lithia's TSR has been an incredible ~300%, more than double RUSHB's ~130%. This was fueled by its aggressive revenue and EPS growth. However, Lithia's margins have been more volatile and consistently lower than RUSHB's. From a risk perspective, Lithia's high-leverage strategy and acquisition dependency make it inherently riskier, which is reflected in its higher stock volatility (beta of ~1.6 vs. RUSHB's ~1.2). Despite the higher risk, the shareholder returns are undeniable, making Lithia the winner on past performance. Winner: Lithia Motors, Inc.
For future growth, Lithia's path is clearly defined by its ongoing acquisition strategy, with a stated goal of reaching $50B in revenue. Its ability to continue finding and integrating dealerships is its primary driver. RUSHB's growth is more cyclical and dependent on economic conditions in the freight and construction sectors, as well as its ability to expand its high-margin services. Analyst consensus projects much stronger forward EPS growth for Lithia (~8-10%) compared to the low single-digit growth expected for RUSHB (~2-4%). Lithia’s aggressive and proven growth model gives it a clear advantage in future prospects, assuming it can manage its debt load. Winner: Lithia Motors, Inc.
From a valuation standpoint, investors are asked to pay a premium for Lithia's growth. Lithia trades at a forward P/E ratio of ~11.0x, which is slightly cheaper than RUSHB's ~11.5x. However, its EV/EBITDA multiple of ~8.5x is much higher than RUSHB's ~5.0x, reflecting its significant debt burden. This means that when you consider the whole company (both equity and debt), Lithia is substantially more expensive. Lithia's dividend yield is also lower at ~0.8%. The quality vs. price trade-off is stark: you get higher growth with Lithia but pay for it with higher debt and lower margins. RUSHB is the better value today on a risk-adjusted basis due to its superior profitability and balance sheet for a similar P/E. Winner: Rush Enterprises, Inc.
Winner: Rush Enterprises, Inc. over Lithia Motors, Inc. This verdict favors financial stability and profitability over high-octane, debt-fueled growth. RUSHB's primary strengths are its stellar operating margins (~6.6%), low leverage (~0.8x Net Debt/EBITDA), and dominant position in a profitable niche. Its main weakness is its sensitivity to the economic cycle. Lithia's key strength is its proven acquisition-led growth engine, but this comes with notable weaknesses, including high leverage (~3.1x) and lower margins (~4.5%). The primary risk for Lithia is that a rise in interest rates or a failed integration could jeopardize its highly leveraged model. For an investor prioritizing balance sheet strength and profitability, RUSHB is the more prudent choice.
AutoNation (AN) is one of the largest automotive retailers in the United States, focused exclusively on passenger vehicles. It has a strong brand presence and a massive footprint of dealerships and collision centers. The comparison with Rush Enterprises (RUSHB) is one of a domestic passenger vehicle giant versus a North American commercial vehicle specialist. AutoNation's scale in the much larger consumer auto market gives it certain advantages, but RUSHB's specialized focus allows for higher profitability. They operate in parallel universes within the broader auto retail industry, serving entirely different customer bases.
AutoNation's business moat is derived from its scale and brand recognition, whereas RUSHB's comes from its specialized, integrated network. For brand, AutoNation is a well-known consumer-facing name, giving it an edge in the passenger market, while RUSHB's brand is paramount among commercial fleet operators. Switching costs are low for AutoNation's customers but moderately high for RUSHB's clients who depend on its service network. In scale, AutoNation is significantly larger, with annual revenues of ~$27B compared to RUSHB's ~$7.9B. AutoNation has a strong network effect in its local markets and in sourcing used cars. RUSHB’s network effect is national for commercial truckers needing service on the road. Neither faces significant regulatory barriers. AutoNation's superior scale and brand recognition in the larger consumer market give it the overall edge. Winner: AutoNation, Inc.
Financially, RUSHB stands out for its superior profitability, while AutoNation has focused on aggressive share buybacks. On revenue growth, both companies have seen modest single-digit growth recently. The key difference is in margins; RUSHB's operating margin of ~6.6% is substantially higher than AutoNation's ~5.0%. This highlights the higher profitability of commercial aftermarket services versus passenger vehicle sales. RUSHB also has a higher ROE (~19% vs. ~16% for AN). In terms of balance sheet, the companies are similar in leverage, with both having a healthy net debt/EBITDA ratio around ~1.0x for RUSHB and ~1.2x for AN. Given its significantly better margins with a comparable balance sheet, RUSHB is the winner on financial quality. Winner: Rush Enterprises, Inc.
Historically, AutoNation has delivered stronger returns for shareholders, primarily through a massive share repurchase program. Over the past five years, AutoNation's TSR is approximately ~280%, dwarfing RUSHB's ~130%. This outperformance is not from superior operational growth, as its revenue CAGR of ~6% is lower than RUSHB's ~8%. The return has been driven by financial engineering; AutoNation has reduced its share count by nearly 40% in that time, boosting its EPS. RUSHB's margin expansion has been more impressive from an operational standpoint. From a risk perspective, both have similar volatility (beta around 1.2-1.3). Due to the sheer magnitude of shareholder returns, AutoNation is the winner here, though it's important to note how those returns were generated. Winner: AutoNation, Inc.
Looking forward, both companies face a mature market with growth tied to broader economic trends. AutoNation's growth will depend on the US consumer, used car pricing, and its ability to expand its AutoNation USA used-car stores and service operations. RUSHB's growth is tied to the commercial freight and construction cycles. Analyst consensus projects flat to low-single-digit EPS growth for both companies in the near term. Neither has a standout growth story, but AutoNation's exposure to the more stable consumer-driven repair and maintenance cycle may give it a slight edge over RUSHB's more volatile industrial cycle dependency. It's a close call. Winner: Even.
Valuation is where AutoNation looks exceptionally cheap on a headline basis. It trades at a forward P/E ratio of just ~8.0x, significantly below RUSHB's ~11.5x. Its EV/EBITDA multiple of ~6.5x is also attractive, though higher than RUSHB's ~5.0x due to a slightly different capital structure. AutoNation does not pay a dividend, preferring to return all capital via buybacks, while RUSHB offers a ~2.0% yield. The quality vs. price trade-off is that AutoNation is statistically cheaper, but RUSHB is a higher-margin, more profitable business. Given the large valuation gap on a P/E basis, AutoNation is the better value today, assuming one is comfortable with its reliance on buybacks to drive shareholder returns. Winner: AutoNation, Inc.
Winner: AutoNation, Inc. over Rush Enterprises, Inc. AutoNation takes the win based on its tremendous historical shareholder returns and a compellingly cheap valuation, despite RUSHB's superior operational profitability. AutoNation's key strength is its massive scale and its aggressive capital return policy via share buybacks, which has created immense value for shareholders. Its notable weakness is its lower-margin business model (~5.0% operating margin) compared to RUSHB. RUSHB's strength is its high profitability (~6.6% margin) and strong balance sheet, but its stock has simply not performed as well. The primary risk for AutoNation is that its buyback-driven model may not be sustainable if cash flows falter. For investors focused on total return and valuation, AutoNation has the better track record and current pricing.
Group 1 Automotive (GPI) is an international automotive retailer with dealerships in the U.S. and the U.K., selling a wide range of passenger vehicle brands. Its business model is similar to other large dealership groups, focusing on new and used vehicle sales, financing, and parts and service. The comparison with Rush Enterprises (RUSHB) highlights the differences between a geographically diversified passenger vehicle retailer and a North American commercial vehicle specialist. GPI's international exposure provides diversification, but also exposes it to currency risk and different economic cycles, while RUSHB is a pure-play on the North American economy.
Group 1's moat is built on geographic and brand diversification. For brand, GPI represents a portfolio of 35 global brands, while RUSHB's brand is synonymous with commercial trucks like Peterbilt. There are low switching costs for GPI's retail customers, contrasting with the stickier service relationships RUSHB has with commercial fleets. On scale, GPI is larger with ~$18B in revenue versus RUSHB's ~$7.9B. Both have effective network effects in their respective markets; GPI within its local territories and RUSHB across the North American trucking routes. There are no major regulatory barriers for either. GPI's diversification across two major markets (U.S. and U.K.) gives it a slight edge in its business model's durability. Winner: Group 1 Automotive, Inc.
Financially, RUSHB demonstrates superior profitability and a much stronger balance sheet. Both companies have shown solid revenue growth in recent years. However, RUSHB's operating margin of ~6.6% is significantly higher than GPI's ~4.8%, a common theme when comparing the commercial specialist to passenger vehicle dealers. RUSHB also generates a higher Return on Equity (ROE) of ~19% compared to GPI's ~16%. The most significant difference is in their financial risk profiles. GPI carries a substantial amount of debt, with a net debt/EBITDA ratio of ~2.6x, whereas RUSHB's is a very conservative ~0.8x. This lower leverage makes RUSHB far more resilient in a downturn. RUSHB is the clear winner on financial quality. Winner: Rush Enterprises, Inc.
Looking at past performance, Group 1 has delivered phenomenal returns to its shareholders. Over the last five years, GPI's TSR has been an astounding ~400%, one of the best in the industry and far surpassing RUSHB's ~130%. This return has been driven by a combination of strong operational execution and accretive capital allocation, including share buybacks. GPI's 5-year revenue CAGR is around ~11%, slightly better than RUSHB's ~8%. In terms of risk, GPI's stock has been more volatile (beta ~1.5 vs RUSHB's ~1.2), but the outsized returns have more than compensated for it. Based on total shareholder return, GPI is the decisive winner. Winner: Group 1 Automotive, Inc.
Both companies' future growth prospects are tied to the health of their respective economies. GPI's growth depends on consumer demand in the U.S. and U.K., and its ability to continue expanding its parts and service business. RUSHB's growth hinges on the North American freight and construction cycles. Analysts project slightly better forward EPS growth for GPI (~4-6%) than for RUSHB (~2-4%), likely due to its more aggressive share repurchase program and potential for service growth. GPI's proven ability to perform across different geographies gives it a slight edge in its growth outlook. Winner: Group 1 Automotive, Inc.
In terms of valuation, both companies appear inexpensive. GPI trades at a forward P/E ratio of ~8.5x, which is significantly cheaper than RUSHB's ~11.5x. However, when looking at the EV/EBITDA multiple, which includes debt, they are closer: GPI is at ~6.0x and RUSHB is at ~5.0x. This indicates that while GPI's equity looks cheap, the company as a whole is more expensive once its higher debt load is factored in. GPI's dividend yield is ~0.7% compared to RUSHB's ~2.0%. The quality vs. price trade-off is clear: GPI offers a lower P/E but comes with more debt and lower margins. RUSHB is the better value today on a risk-adjusted basis because its valuation premium is justified by its superior profitability and fortress balance sheet. Winner: Rush Enterprises, Inc.
Winner: Rush Enterprises, Inc. over Group 1 Automotive, Inc. Despite GPI's incredible past stock performance, RUSHB wins this comparison based on its superior business quality and financial prudence. RUSHB's key strengths are its best-in-class operating margins (~6.6%), low leverage (~0.8x Net Debt/EBITDA), and dominant niche market position. Its primary risk is cyclicality. GPI's strength is its track record of generating massive shareholder returns, but this is accompanied by the notable weakness of high leverage (~2.6x) and lower profitability (~4.8% margin). For an investor prioritizing operational excellence and balance sheet safety over chasing past returns, RUSHB is the more fundamentally sound investment.
Asbury Automotive Group (ABG) is another major player in the U.S. passenger vehicle dealership market, having grown significantly through large-scale acquisitions, most notably the purchase of Larry H. Miller Dealerships. Its strategy focuses on consolidating franchised dealerships and expanding its high-margin parts and service business, along with its digital platform, Clicklane. The comparison with Rush Enterprises (RUSHB) once again sets a high-growth, acquisition-driven passenger vehicle retailer against a specialized commercial vehicle operator. Asbury's model is about achieving scale and efficiency in the consumer market, while Rush's is about dominating a commercial niche.
The business moats of Asbury and Rush are built on different foundations. Asbury's moat is its growing scale and the brand equity of the dealerships it acquires. Its annual revenue is ~$14B, nearly double RUSHB's ~$7.9B. Its brand is a collection of strong regional dealership names, plus its corporate Asbury identity. Switching costs for its customers are low. In contrast, RUSHB's moat is its integrated network of service centers, which creates higher switching costs for its commercial fleet customers. RUSHB's Rush Truck Centers brand is dominant in its specific niche. Asbury's recent large acquisitions have rapidly increased its scale, giving it a slight edge in overall market presence and sourcing power. Winner: Asbury Automotive Group, Inc.
Financially, RUSHB presents a more conservative and profitable profile. While Asbury's revenue growth has been very strong due to acquisitions (5-year CAGR of ~15%), its profitability is lower. RUSHB's operating margin of ~6.6% is superior to Asbury's ~6.0%. RUSHB also generates a higher Return on Equity (ROE) at ~19% versus Asbury's ~17%. The key differentiator is the balance sheet. Asbury's acquisitions have been funded with significant debt, pushing its net debt/EBITDA ratio to ~2.8x. This is manageable but much higher than RUSHB's very safe ~0.8x. RUSHB's combination of higher margins and a much stronger balance sheet makes it the financial victor. Winner: Rush Enterprises, Inc.
In terms of past performance, Asbury has delivered exceptional returns for its investors. Over the last five years, Asbury's TSR is approximately ~320%, significantly outperforming RUSHB's ~130%. This performance was supercharged by its aggressive acquisition strategy, which dramatically grew its earnings base. While RUSHB has shown steady operational improvement, it has not matched the explosive, M&A-fueled growth of Asbury. From a risk perspective, Asbury's higher leverage and integration challenges make it riskier, reflected in its stock beta of ~1.6. However, the historical returns have been more than sufficient to compensate investors for that risk. Winner: Asbury Automotive Group, Inc.
Looking to the future, Asbury's growth is contingent on successfully integrating its large acquisitions and extracting synergies, as well as continuing its M&A strategy. RUSHB's growth is more organically linked to the commercial vehicle cycle. Analysts expect Asbury to have a stronger forward EPS growth trajectory (~5-7%) as it digests its acquisitions, compared to RUSHB's more modest outlook (~2-4%). Asbury's clearly defined path to growing its earnings base through integration and further acquisitions gives it the edge in future growth potential, provided it executes well. Winner: Asbury Automotive Group, Inc.
From a valuation perspective, Asbury appears significantly undervalued relative to its growth. It trades at a forward P/E ratio of only ~7.5x, which is one of the lowest in the sector and much cheaper than RUSHB's ~11.5x. Its EV/EBITDA multiple of ~6.5x is also attractive, though higher than RUSHB's ~5.0x because of its debt. Asbury does not pay a dividend, reinvesting all cash into growth and buybacks. The quality vs. price dynamic is compelling for Asbury; investors get a high-growth company for a very low earnings multiple. Despite its higher debt, the valuation is so low that Asbury represents the better value today. Winner: Asbury Automotive Group, Inc.
Winner: Asbury Automotive Group, Inc. over Rush Enterprises, Inc. Asbury wins this matchup based on its demonstrated history of superior shareholder returns, a clear path to future growth, and a deeply discounted valuation. Asbury's primary strength is its successful M&A strategy that has rapidly scaled the company and its earnings. Its key weakness is its elevated balance sheet risk with a net debt/EBITDA of ~2.8x. RUSHB is a higher-quality company from a margin and balance sheet perspective, but its stock performance has been lackluster in comparison, and its valuation is not as compelling. The primary risk for Asbury is a failure to properly integrate its acquisitions or an economic downturn that strains its leveraged balance sheet. However, at its current price, the market appears to be overly discounting these risks.
Titan Machinery (TITN) is a dealer of agricultural and construction equipment, primarily for the CNH Industrial brands. While not a direct competitor in the Class 8 truck market, it is an excellent peer for Rush Enterprises (RUSHB) because it operates a very similar business model in a different, but equally cyclical, end market. Both companies are specialized dealers that derive a significant portion of their profit from high-margin parts and service operations. This comparison provides insight into how RUSHB's execution stacks up against another specialty dealer exposed to different macroeconomic drivers (agriculture and construction vs. freight).
Both companies have strong moats built on niche expertise and service networks. For brand, Titan's is linked to Case IH and New Holland, while Rush's is tied to Peterbilt. Both are powerful within their domains. Switching costs are high for both, as farmers and fleet operators rely on their dealer's service and parts availability to maintain uptime on critical, expensive equipment. In terms of scale, RUSHB is larger with ~$7.9B in revenue versus Titan's ~$2.4B. Both have strong regional network effects; Titan across the farm belt and RUSHB across freight corridors. There are no major regulatory barriers. RUSHB's greater scale and its fully integrated North American network give it a slight advantage. Winner: Rush Enterprises, Inc.
Financially, the two companies are very similar, but RUSHB has a slight edge in profitability. Both have experienced cyclical revenue growth. RUSHB's operating margin of ~6.6% is notably better than Titan's ~4.5%, indicating superior profitability, likely from a richer mix of high-margin services. However, Titan has historically generated a stronger Return on Equity (ROE), recently around ~18%, comparable to RUSHB's ~19%. On the balance sheet, both are managed conservatively. RUSHB's net debt/EBITDA is ~0.8x, while Titan's is also very low at ~1.1x (excluding equipment financing). RUSHB's superior operating margins give it the win in this category. Winner: Rush Enterprises, Inc.
Looking at past performance, RUSHB has delivered better returns for shareholders in recent years. Over the last five years, RUSHB's TSR is ~130%, while Titan Machinery's is lower at ~80%. Titan's performance is more volatile, heavily influenced by the agricultural cycle (e.g., crop prices, farmer income). Both have seen periods of strong revenue growth followed by pullbacks, which is characteristic of their industries. RUSHB has demonstrated more consistent margin expansion over the period. From a risk perspective, Titan's stock is significantly more volatile (beta ~1.7) due to its direct ties to commodity cycles. RUSHB's superior and less volatile returns make it the winner. Winner: Rush Enterprises, Inc.
Future growth for both companies is highly dependent on their respective cyclical end markets. Titan's growth relies on the health of the agricultural economy, driven by factors like crop prices and the need for farmers to replace aging equipment. RUSHB's growth is tied to the freight cycle and industrial activity. Both are investing in precision technology and data-driven services to grow their parts and service business. Analyst expectations for both are for flat to modest EPS growth in the near term, reflecting peak-cycle concerns in both agriculture and trucking. RUSHB's slightly more stable service business may give it a minor edge. Winner: Rush Enterprises, Inc.
In terms of valuation, Titan Machinery looks exceptionally cheap. It trades at a forward P/E ratio of just ~7.0x, a steep discount to RUSHB's ~11.5x. Its EV/EBITDA multiple is also very low at ~4.5x, slightly below RUSHB's ~5.0x. Neither company pays a significant dividend. The quality vs. price trade-off is that RUSHB is a higher-margin, more stable business, but Titan is trading at a significant discount. The market is pricing in a severe downturn in the agricultural cycle for Titan. For a value-oriented investor, Titan's valuation is too compelling to ignore, despite its higher cyclicality. It is the better value today. Winner: Titan Machinery Inc.
Winner: Rush Enterprises, Inc. over Titan Machinery Inc. RUSHB wins this comparison due to its superior business quality, higher profitability, and better historical shareholder returns. RUSHB's key strengths are its larger scale, industry-leading operating margins (~6.6%), and a less volatile earnings stream compared to Titan. Its weakness remains its cyclicality, but it is less pronounced than Titan's dependence on the farm economy. Titan's main strength is its extremely low valuation (~7.0x P/E), but this comes with the weakness of lower margins (~4.5%) and exposure to the highly volatile agricultural market. The primary risk for Titan is a prolonged downturn in farm income, which could severely impact its results. RUSHB is the more durable and proven operator.
Based on industry classification and performance score:
Rush Enterprises operates the largest network of commercial truck dealerships in North America, functioning as a 'one-stop-shop' for sales, parts, service, and leasing. The company's primary strength and competitive moat come from its massive, highly profitable parts and service division, which is so effective it covers all dealership overhead costs before a single truck is sold. While new truck sales are cyclical and its financing arm is underdeveloped, the recurring revenue from its service network provides significant stability. The investor takeaway is positive, as Rush's scale and integrated model create high customer switching costs and a durable business.
Rush's entire business is fundamentally built around serving commercial fleets, and its integrated network and dedicated lease and rental division are designed to foster sticky, long-term relationships.
Rush Enterprises' entire strategy is centered on building and maintaining long-term relationships with fleet and commercial customers. While the company does not disclose specific metrics like active fleet accounts, its business composition is clear evidence of its success. The $2.50 billion Parts and Service business and $366.92 million Lease and Rental division are direct results of recurring business from a large base of commercial clients. These services, which go far beyond a one-time vehicle sale, create high switching costs. A fleet manager who relies on Rush's nationwide network for service, parts, and supplemental rental trucks would find it operationally complex and costly to switch to a competitor. This deep integration into its customers' operations is a key source of revenue stability and a primary pillar of its competitive moat.
The enormous revenue and industry-leading profitability of Rush's after-sales segment serve as powerful proof of a vast, highly utilized, and efficient service network.
Although specific data on the number of service bays or utilization rates is not provided, the financial performance of Rush's parts and service operations strongly implies a massive and highly efficient network. Generating $2.50 billion in annual revenue from this segment is not possible without substantial physical capacity and high throughput. The key performance indicator is the 132.20% dealership absorption ratio, which is exceptional for the industry. Achieving this level of profitability—where service gross profits more than cover all of the company's fixed costs—is a direct reflection of high utilization and strong operational management. This 'fixed operations' powerhouse provides Rush with a stable and significant cash flow stream that is resilient through economic cycles, forming the foundation of its business strength.
Rush's after-sales business is exceptionally strong, generating `$2.50 billion` in revenue and enough gross profit to cover all of the company's fixed costs with plenty to spare, indicating extreme resilience.
Rush Enterprises demonstrates best-in-class performance in its after-sales operations. The company's Parts and Service division generated $2.50 billion in revenue in the last twelve months, accounting for a third of the company's total business. The most telling metric of its strength is the dealership absorption ratio, which stood at an impressive 132.20% for fiscal year 2024. This ratio measures the ability of the high-margin parts and service business to cover all of a dealership's fixed overhead expenses. A ratio above 100% is considered excellent in the dealer industry, and Rush's figure is far superior, indicating that the company's profitability is fundamentally secured by this stable, recurring revenue stream before it even sells a single vehicle. This provides a powerful buffer against the cyclicality of truck sales and is the cornerstone of its business model.
Rush maintains a balanced and deep inventory across heavy-duty, medium-duty, and used commercial trucks, positioning it to meet diverse customer needs across different economic cycles.
Rush effectively manages a broad and specialized inventory mix tailored to the commercial market. In the last twelve months, the company sold 30,600 new units, with a nearly even split between heavy-duty trucks (13,940 units) and medium-duty trucks (14,090 units). This diversification is a key strength, as demand for different truck classes can vary based on economic conditions; for instance, medium-duty demand is often tied to local and regional delivery trends, which can be more stable than long-haul freight. The company also sold 7,040 used vehicles, providing a lower-cost option for customers. This ability to offer a comprehensive range of new and used solutions across different vehicle classes makes Rush a true 'one-stop-shop' and strengthens its position against smaller competitors with more limited offerings.
Finance and Insurance is a very minor part of Rush's business, contributing less than half a percent of total revenue and suggesting it is not a meaningful driver of profit or a source of competitive advantage.
While Rush provides Finance and Insurance (F&I) products, it is a clear area of weakness compared to other parts of its business. The segment generated just $21.22 million in revenue over the last twelve months. Spread across the 34,150 total vehicles sold, this equates to a gross profit per unit of approximately $621. This figure is significantly lower than the $1,500 - $2,500 per unit that is common among automotive retailers, indicating that F&I is not a major focus. Its contribution of only 0.3% to total revenue further underscores that this is an ancillary service rather than a core profit center. For investors, this means that unlike many other dealers, Rush does not derive a significant portion of its profitability from high-margin financing and warranty products, making it a non-factor in its overall moat.
Rush Enterprises is currently profitable, but facing slight pressure on revenue and margins. The company generated strong free cash flow of $271 million in its most recent quarter, largely by reducing its large inventory position. While total debt remains high at $1.52 billion, the company is actively using its cash to pay it down, which is a positive sign for financial stability. The investor takeaway is mixed: strong recent cash generation provides a safety cushion, but the high debt and inventory levels in a cyclical industry require careful monitoring.
The company carries a significant debt load of `$1.52 billion` but demonstrated strong capability to manage it by paying down over `$200 million` in the last quarter alone.
Rush Enterprises' balance sheet is characterized by high leverage, with total debt standing at $1.52 billion as of Q3 2025. While specific floorplan debt figures are not provided, this debt is essential for funding its large vehicle inventory. The key concern for investors is the interest burden, which was $11.72 million in the quarter. However, with an operating income of $100.19 million, the company's interest coverage ratio is a healthy 8.5x, indicating it earns more than enough to service its debt payments. Most importantly, the company is actively de-leveraging, using its strong cash flow to make a net debt repayment of $232 million in Q3. This proactive debt management significantly mitigates the risk associated with its high debt load. Industry benchmark data for this category is not available for comparison.
Gross margins have remained impressively stable around `19.7%`, signaling consistent pricing power, though overall profitability is being slightly eroded by higher operating costs.
While data on gross profit per unit is not available, the company's overall gross margin provides a strong indicator of its profitability on sales. This figure has been very consistent, registering 19.74% for fiscal 2024, 19.66% in Q2 2025, and 19.93% in Q3 2025. This stability is a significant strength, as it suggests Rush has maintained its pricing discipline and sourcing efficiency despite minor revenue fluctuations. However, it's worth noting that the stable gross profit is not fully translating to the bottom line, as operating margins have declined. This implies that while the profitability of its sales mix is holding up, other costs are impacting overall results. Industry benchmark data for this category is not available for comparison.
The company's returns on its large asset base have weakened recently, with both Return on Assets and Return on Equity declining from their full-year levels.
As a dealer, Rush operates an asset-intensive business, and its ability to generate returns on those assets is critical. The latest data shows a decline in performance. Return on Assets (ROA) is 5.41% (current), down from 6.5% for FY2024. Similarly, Return on Equity (ROE) has dropped to 12.28% from 15.05%. While these returns are not poor, the negative trend reflects the margin pressure the company is experiencing. The company's very strong free cash flow in Q3 was largely due to liquidating inventory rather than from higher returns on ongoing operations. This weakening efficiency in using its capital to generate profit is a concern. Industry benchmark data for this category is not available for comparison.
Operating margin has compressed from `6.0%` to `5.3%` over the past year, revealing that operating expenses are rising as a percentage of sales, a negative trend for profitability.
Rush's operational efficiency has shown recent signs of weakness. The operating margin has fallen from 5.99% in fiscal 2024 to 5.33% in Q3 2025. This decline is a result of negative operating leverage, where costs do not decrease in line with revenue. Selling, General & Administrative (SG&A) expenses as a percentage of sales increased from 13.0% in Q2 to 13.6% in Q3, even as revenue declined. This indicates a lack of cost discipline in the short term, as fixed and administrative costs are consuming a larger portion of gross profit. For investors, this is a red flag that needs to be monitored, as continued margin compression will directly hurt net income. Industry benchmark data for this category is not available for comparison.
The company demonstrated excellent working capital management in the last quarter, reducing inventory by nearly `$200 million` to generate a massive boost in operating cash flow.
Effective management of working capital, especially inventory, is crucial for a vehicle dealer. In Q3 2025, Rush showed significant strength in this area. The company's inventory level dropped from $1.84 billion in Q2 to $1.66 billion. This ~$180 million reduction directly converted a non-cash asset into cash, fueling an exceptionally strong operating cash flow of $367.78 million. The inventory turnover ratio has remained stable at 3.41, suggesting the reduction was a deliberate management decision rather than a sign of collapsing sales. This ability to efficiently manage its largest current asset to generate liquidity is a major financial strength. Industry benchmark data for this category is not available for comparison.
Rush Enterprises has demonstrated strong but cyclical growth over the past five years, with revenue expanding from $4.7 billion in 2020 to $7.8 billion in 2024, and EPS more than doubling. However, this performance has been inconsistent, marked by a recent slowdown in revenue and volatile cash flows, including negative free cash flow in fiscal 2023. Key strengths include a track record of profitable growth, expanding operating margins from 3.23% to 5.99% over five years, and shareholder-friendly capital returns through consistently rising dividends and share buybacks. The main weakness is the business's cyclicality and the poor conversion of profit into free cash flow during periods of heavy investment. The overall takeaway is mixed, reflecting a company that executes well through cycles but whose financial performance can be choppy.
Despite operating in a cyclical industry, the stock has delivered strong long-term returns to shareholders, more than doubling in price over the last five years with volatility in line with the broader market.
Rush Enterprises has provided strong returns to shareholders over the five-year period. The company's market capitalization grew from $2.2 billion at the end of FY2020 to $4.3 billion at the end of FY2024, reflecting substantial stock price appreciation. The lastClosePrice in the provided data confirms this, rising from $23.49 to $53.90 over that timeframe. This performance was achieved with a beta of 0.93, suggesting its stock price volatility has been slightly less than the overall market. While the business itself is cyclical, the stock's risk-return profile has been favorable for long-term investors, rewarding them for holding through the industry's ups and downs.
Operating margins significantly improved over the last five years, but they remain cyclical and have recently pulled back from their 2022 peak.
Rush has successfully improved its profitability over the past five years, but stability remains elusive. The company's operating margin expanded from a low of 3.23% in FY2020 to a cycle peak of 7.09% in FY2022, demonstrating strong operating leverage and cost control in a favorable market. However, margins have since compressed to 5.99% in FY2024, highlighting their sensitivity to market conditions. Similarly, EPS grew impressively from $1.40 in FY2020 to $3.85 in FY2024, but the path was not linear, with a decline in the last two years. While the overall trend is positive, the volatility is notable. The performance passes because the company has sustained margins at a structurally higher level than where they were five years ago, indicating durable operational improvements.
Critical data on same-store sales is not available, preventing a clear assessment of the core health of existing locations exclusive of new openings or acquisitions.
The provided financial data does not include metrics for same-store sales, same-store units, or parts and service growth, which are crucial for evaluating a dealer's performance. Without this information, it is impossible to distinguish how much of the company's revenue growth came from existing locations versus new ones. Strong same-store sales would indicate healthy demand and pricing power at the core of the business. The absence of this key performance indicator creates a significant blind spot for investors trying to assess the underlying, organic health of the company's dealership network. Because this fundamental aspect of past performance cannot be verified, the factor fails.
The company has an excellent track record of returning capital to shareholders through growing dividends and buybacks, but its underlying free cash flow generation has been highly volatile and inconsistent.
Rush's performance in this category is a tale of two parts. On one hand, capital returns have been strong and consistent. The dividend per share has more than doubled from $0.273 in FY2020 to $0.70 in FY2024, and the company has reduced its share count from 82 million to 79 million over the same period through buybacks. This demonstrates a clear commitment to shareholders. However, the cash generation supporting these returns has been erratic. Operating cash flow has swung from $763 million in FY2020 to as low as $294 million in FY2022. More concerningly, free cash flow (FCF) has been very weak at times, dropping to just $51 million in FY2022 and turning negative at -$73 million in FY2023 due to high capital expenditures and inventory build-up. While the dividend appears safe with a low payout ratio, the inconsistent FCF makes the overall quality of cash generation weak.
The company has a proven track record of significant expansion, evidenced by strong revenue growth and a substantial increase in assets and capital spending over the last five years.
While specific data on new stores or service bays is not provided, Rush's financial history clearly points to a successful expansion strategy. Revenue grew at a five-year CAGR of approximately 13.3%, increasing from $4.7 billion in FY2020 to $7.8 billion in FY2024. This growth was fueled by heavy reinvestment into the business. Property, Plant, and Equipment increased from $1.26 billion to $1.73 billion, and annual capital expenditures surged from $136 million to $433 million over the same five-year period. This sustained, high level of investment, coupled with the resulting top-line growth, demonstrates a strong historical ability to expand its operational footprint and capacity effectively.
Rush Enterprises' future growth outlook is mixed, characterized by cyclical but potentially strong vehicle sales and highly resilient, steadily growing after-sales services. The primary tailwind is the increasing complexity of commercial trucks, which drives more high-margin service business to Rush's sophisticated, nationwide network. However, the company faces headwinds from economic uncertainty and high interest rates that can dampen demand for new trucks. Compared to competitors, Rush's key advantage is its unparalleled parts and service division, which provides a stable profit base. The investor takeaway is cautiously positive; while top-line growth may be lumpy, the underlying service business offers significant downside protection and a platform for steady, long-term value creation.
The sheer scale of Rush's recurring parts, service, and leasing revenue is strong evidence of a large and stable base of fleet customers with long-term contracts and relationships.
While Rush does not disclose a formal backlog or book-to-bill ratio, the health of its fleet business is clearly reflected in its financial results. The Parts and Service segment generates a massive $2.50 billion in annual revenue, and the Lease and Rental division adds another $367 million. This level of revenue is impossible to achieve without a vast and loyal base of recurring fleet accounts. These operations, by their nature, are built on long-term service contracts and repeat business. The company's industry-leading dealership absorption ratio of 132.20% further proves that its fleet-focused service operations are robust, profitable, and form a highly predictable revenue stream that underpins the entire business.
Given that its service division is the heart of its competitive moat, Rush actively invests in technician training and facility upgrades to handle increasingly complex vehicles, which is critical for future growth.
The sustained success of Rush's parts and service business depends entirely on its ability to service the most modern vehicles. Management has explicitly stated that investing in technicians and technology is a top priority. As trucks become more complex with advanced electronics, emissions systems, and eventually electric powertrains, significant capital expenditure is required for new diagnostic tools, bay equipment, and continuous technician training. The company's capital expenditures, which were over $430 million for the truck segment in FY2024, reflect this commitment. This investment is not optional; it is essential to maintaining its service advantage over smaller competitors and is a direct enabler of future high-margin service revenue growth.
Rush has a long and successful history of growing its network through strategic acquisitions of smaller dealerships, a core strategy that continues to expand its market presence.
Rush Enterprises' growth has been consistently fueled by expanding its physical footprint. The company operates over 150 Rush Truck Center locations across the United States and Canada, making it the largest network of its kind. Its primary method of expansion is the strategic acquisition of smaller, independent dealers in new or existing markets, which it then integrates into its nationwide network. This consolidator strategy allows Rush to enter new territories and add new OEM brand representations efficiently. While the company does not provide forward-looking guidance on specific new store openings, its historical pattern of acquisitions demonstrates a clear and ongoing commitment to network expansion as a key pillar of its growth plan.
Rush consistently expands its one-stop-shop model by acquiring dealerships and adding adjacent services like vehicle modifications, which successfully increases revenue per customer.
Rush Enterprises' strategy heavily relies on expanding its offerings to capture a larger share of its customers' wallets. This includes acquiring new dealerships to expand its geographic footprint and integrating new services like custom upfitting and body shops. For instance, the company has expanded its Rush Trucking Centers to include modification capabilities, allowing it to deliver work-ready trucks tailored to specific customer needs. This strategy strengthens its value proposition as a comprehensive solutions provider. While specific cross-sell rates are not disclosed, the consistent growth and high profitability of the $2.50 billion parts and service segment suggest that the company is successful at attaching these high-margin offerings to its vehicle sales. This strategic expansion is a clear and proven driver of future growth.
The company's digital presence appears focused on basic lead generation and online parts sales, lacking the sophisticated omnichannel integration seen in the broader automotive retail sector.
While Rush Enterprises operates websites for lead capture and has an online parts ordering system, there is little evidence of a sophisticated, data-driven omnichannel strategy aimed at significantly lowering customer acquisition costs or streamlining the sales cycle. The commercial truck industry, being B2B-focused, has traditionally lagged the consumer auto sector in digital retail innovation. The company does not disclose key metrics like website leads, online-to-in-store conversion, or digital marketing spend. Given the emphasis on its physical network and direct sales relationships, its digital channels appear to be more supportive than transformative. This represents a potential area of underinvestment and a missed opportunity for future efficiency gains.
As of December 26, 2025, with a stock price of $58.52, Rush Enterprises, Inc. appears to be fairly valued. The company's valuation is supported by its strong, high-margin service business, which provides a resilient profit stream, but is balanced by its exposure to the highly cyclical commercial truck market. Key metrics such as its Trailing Twelve Month (TTM) P/E ratio of approximately 17.4x and a dividend yield of 1.3% place it in a reasonable position relative to its history and peers. The stock is currently trading in the upper third of its 52-week range, suggesting limited immediate upside. For a retail investor, the takeaway is neutral; the current price does not offer a significant discount, but the underlying business quality provides a solid foundation, making it a stock to watch for a better entry point.
The stock's current P/E ratio of ~17.4x is squarely within its historical range and its premium to peers is justified by superior profitability and a stronger balance sheet.
Rush's P/E multiple of 17.4x on a TTM basis is reasonable. It is not trading at a significant premium to its historical average, which suggests the price hasn't run away from its fundamental earnings power. While it is higher than imperfect peers like Penske (11.7x P/E), this is warranted. The prior analyses confirmed Rush's best-in-class operating margins and more conservative balance sheet. Therefore, the market is correctly assigning a higher quality multiple to Rush's earnings. The valuation is fair on both a historical and a relative basis, meriting a pass.
A strong Free Cash Flow (FCF) yield of nearly 8% indicates that the company's operations generate substantial cash relative to its market valuation, suggesting it is not overpriced.
This factor passes because the company's valuation appears reasonable when viewed through a cash flow lens. The estimated FCF yield of ~7.8% is robust, offering investors a solid underlying return based on the cash the business generates. The Net Debt/EBITDA ratio, as noted in the financial analysis, is low for the industry, which strengthens the Enterprise Value calculation. While EV/EBITDA data is not readily available for a precise comparison, the high FCF yield is a powerful indicator of value. It signals that the market is not assigning a frothy multiple to the company's cash-generating capabilities.
Rush provides a dependable return to shareholders through a well-covered dividend and consistent share buybacks, supported by a conservative payout ratio.
The company's commitment to returning capital to shareholders is clear and sustainable. The current dividend yield is ~1.3%, and it is supported by a low payout ratio of just 22-23%, indicating it is very safe and has room to grow. Critically, this is augmented by a consistent share repurchase program, which boosts total shareholder yield. The FinancialStatementAnalysis confirmed that this capital allocation strategy is prudent and easily covered by strong free cash flow. This disciplined approach provides a tangible return and downside support for investors, justifying a pass.
The company carries a considerable debt load but has demonstrated strong cash flow to manage it effectively, including a significant debt paydown in the most recent quarter.
Rush Enterprises maintains a balance sheet with significant leverage, with total debt reported at $1.52 billion. However, this is typical for a dealership model that requires financing for large inventories. The key positive indicator is the company's ability to service and reduce this debt. In its last reported quarter, it made a net debt repayment of $232 million, a strong sign of financial discipline. Its interest coverage ratio is healthy, and the current ratio of 1.37 provides an adequate liquidity cushion, even if much of it is in inventory. While the absolute debt level warrants monitoring, the demonstrated ability to generate cash and de-lever earns this factor a pass.
With revenue growth projected to be in the low single digits and signs of a slowing freight market, the company's growth prospects do not currently support a higher valuation.
This factor fails because the forward-looking growth outlook is modest. The prior FutureGrowth analysis projects a near-term revenue CAGR of only +2.5%. This is influenced by a normalizing backlog for new trucks, signaling a cyclical slowdown. While gross margins have been stable at around 19.7%, the lack of a strong top-line growth driver is a key risk. The EV/Sales multiple is a useful metric in cyclical industries, and with sales growth expected to be muted, there is little justification for that multiple to expand. The valuation is therefore not supported by a strong growth story at this point in the cycle.
The greatest risk facing Rush Enterprises is its deep connection to the highly cyclical trucking industry. The company's revenue from truck sales, parts, and services is directly tied to economic activity. During periods of economic slowdown or recession, freight volumes decline, leading trucking companies to delay purchasing new vehicles and cut back on maintenance spending. Furthermore, rising interest rates make it more expensive for Rush's customers to finance big-ticket items like Class 8 trucks, directly pressuring sales volumes. An economic downturn would therefore have a swift and significant negative impact on Rush's top and bottom lines.
Within the industry, Rush faces a critical risk related to vehicle pricing and inventory. Following years of supply chain disruptions that led to a shortage of new trucks and record-high used truck prices, the market is beginning to normalize. As new truck production catches up with demand, the inflated values of used trucks are expected to decline. This poses a two-fold threat to Rush: it will reduce the profitability of its used truck sales and could force the company to write down the value of the extensive inventory it holds on its balance sheet, directly impacting earnings. This normalization of supply and pricing is one of the most significant margin risks for the company over the next couple of years.
The long-term landscape is being reshaped by technological and regulatory changes, specifically the shift toward electric vehicles (EVs) and stricter emissions standards. While new regulations can spur replacement cycles, the transition to EVs presents a fundamental challenge to Rush's business model. The company will need to make substantial capital investments in charging infrastructure, specialized tools, and technician training to service these new vehicles. More importantly, electric trucks have fewer moving parts and require less routine maintenance than their diesel counterparts, which threatens to erode Rush’s high-margin aftermarket parts and service business over the coming decade. The pace and execution of this transition will be critical to the company's long-term success.
Click a section to jump