NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA)vs Rivian Automotive, Inc. (RIVN)

Quick verdict

NVIDIA and Rivian sit at opposite ends of the technology-to-cyclical spectrum. NVIDIA trades on a trailing P/E of 31.6 but a forward P/E of just 10.38, reflecting analyst expectations of continued strong earnings growth, alongside a PEG ratio of 0.29, suggesting growth-adjusted value. Rivian carries a negative trailing P/E of -6.08 and a negative PEG of -0.25, reflecting ongoing losses, with net margin at -63.62% and ROE at -69.98%. NVIDIA shows a 3-year revenue CAGR of 65.47%, gross margin of 74.15%, and ROIC of 62.99%, versus Rivian's 8.39% revenue CAGR and -30.65% ROIC. Overall scores favour NVIDIA (4) over Rivian (2), with NVIDIA rated 'A' across growth, quality, balance sheet and income, while Rivian is tagged high-volatility. NVIDIA's 1-year return of 75.11% also outpaces Rivian's 99.31%, though Rivian's 5-year max drawdown of -59.47% signals materially higher risk.

2-year relative performance

At-a-glance comparison

Business model and revenue mix

NVIDIA designs graphics, computational, and networking hardware, spanning GeForce GPUs for gaming, the GeForce NOW cloud service, and broader compute infrastructure, operating across the US, Taiwan, China and other markets. Its business model centres on high-margin semiconductor design rather than manufacturing. Rivian designs, engineers and manufactures electric vehicles and related accessories, operating within the capital-intensive Auto Manufacturers industry. Where NVIDIA benefits from asset-light licensing and design economics reflected in a 74.15% gross margin, Rivian's model requires heavy capital investment in production, evident in its -1.72% gross margin and -68.94% operating margin. The two companies represent contrasting stages: NVIDIA is an established, profitable technology leader, while Rivian remains an early-stage manufacturer still scaling production and working toward profitability within the Consumer Cyclical sector.

Valuation

NVIDIA's trailing P/E of 31.6 appears elevated in isolation, but its forward P/E of 10.38 implies expected earnings expansion, and its PEG of 0.29 suggests the stock may be reasonably valued relative to growth. Its EV/EBITDA of 26.02 and P/S of 19.81 remain rich by traditional standards, alongside a P/B of 25.75. Rivian's valuation metrics are harder to interpret conventionally given negative earnings: trailing P/E of -6.08, forward P/E of 0, and PEG of -0.25 all reflect the absence of positive net income. Rivian's P/S of 3.9 and P/B of 5.04 are lower than NVIDIA's, but its EV/EBITDA of -10.28 underscores negative operating profitability. The valuation verdict of 'B' reflects a mixed picture where NVIDIA's premium multiples are offset by strong forward growth expectations.

Growth profile

NVIDIA demonstrates substantially stronger growth credentials, with a 3-year revenue CAGR of 65.47% and 5-year revenue CAGR of 21.13%, alongside EPS CAGRs of 65.99% (3-year) and 32.08% (5-year). Rivian's growth is comparatively muted on revenue, with an 8.39% 3-year CAGR, though its 5-year revenue CAGR of 25.35% is closer to NVIDIA's. Notably, Rivian's EPS CAGRs of 34.54% (3-year) and 22.18% (5-year) appear positive despite negative net margins, likely reflecting a narrowing of losses from a low base rather than genuine profitability. The growth verdict of 'A' is assigned to NVIDIA, consistent with its scale and consistency of expansion across both revenue and earnings, whereas Rivian's growth remains earlier-stage and less consistent.

Profitability and quality

NVIDIA's profitability profile is exceptionally strong, with gross margin of 74.15%, operating margin of 64.02%, net margin of 62.97%, ROE of 111.66% and ROIC of 62.99%. These figures reflect a highly efficient, scaled business. Rivian, by contrast, remains deeply unprofitable, with gross margin of -1.72%, operating margin of -68.94%, net margin of -63.62%, ROE of -69.98% and ROIC of -30.65%. This stark contrast underpins the quality verdict of 'A' for NVIDIA. Rivian's negative margins across every measure indicate the company is still absorbing significant costs relative to revenue, consistent with an early-stage manufacturer scaling production, whereas NVIDIA's metrics reflect mature, high-margin operating leverage typical of established semiconductor leaders.

Balance-sheet risk

NVIDIA holds cash of $10.10 billion against total debt of $69.33 billion, with net debt/EBITDA of -0.17, a current ratio of 3.44, and interest coverage of 27.55, indicating strong liquidity and debt-servicing capacity. Rivian reports cash of $61.40 billion against total debt of $83.86 billion, with net debt/EBITDA of -1.26, a current ratio of 2.10, and interest coverage of 11.34. Both companies show negative net debt/EBITDA, implying net cash positions relative to EBITDA, though Rivian's negative EBITDA complicates this interpretation. NVIDIA's interest coverage of 27.55 is notably higher than Rivian's 11.34, suggesting greater ease servicing interest obligations. The balance sheet verdict of 'A' favours NVIDIA, reflecting its combination of high coverage ratios and strong current ratio despite carrying meaningful debt.

Price performance and shareholder returns

Rivian has delivered a stronger 1-year return of 99.31% versus NVIDIA's 75.11%, though NVIDIA's YTD return of 2.83% compares to Rivian's -9.60%. Over longer horizons, NVIDIA's 3-year annualised return of 3.02% trails Rivian's -1.16% only marginally, while NVIDIA's 5-year annualised return of 32.41% outpaces Rivian's 41.75%... actually Rivian's 5-year annualised return of 41.75% exceeds NVIDIA's 32.41%. Risk profiles differ sharply: NVIDIA's beta of 2.211 exceeds Rivian's 1.602, yet Rivian's maximum 5-year drawdown of -59.47% is considerably deeper than NVIDIA's -29.43%. The momentum verdict of 'B' applies to both, reflecting mixed recent performance trends despite differing volatility characteristics, with Rivian's price history showing a decline from 554.05 to around 512.54 over the sampled period.

Which stock fits which investor

Based on the supplied verdicts, NVIDIA is identified as best suited to growth, income, and quality-focused investors, supported by its 'A' ratings across growth, quality, balance sheet and income categories, alongside its high-growth, value style tag. Rivian is identified as best suited to value-oriented considerations despite its high-volatility style tag and lower overall score of 2 versus NVIDIA's 4. Investors prioritising profitability metrics such as ROE of 111.66% and ROIC of 62.99%, alongside balance sheet strength reflected in interest coverage of 27.55, may find NVIDIA's profile more aligned with quality and income objectives. Those weighing Rivian would be assessing an early-stage manufacturer with negative margins and higher drawdown risk, as reflected in its -59.47% maximum 5-year drawdown, against its comparatively lower price-to-sales ratio of 3.9.

• Value: RIVN
• Growth: NVDA
• Income: NVDA
• Quality: NVDA

Frequently asked questions

Which company is more profitable, NVIDIA or Rivian?

NVIDIA is substantially more profitable, with a net margin of 62.97% and ROE of 111.66%, compared to Rivian's net margin of -63.62% and ROE of -69.98%. NVIDIA also holds an 'A' quality verdict, reflecting its consistent high-margin performance.

How do NVIDIA and Rivian's valuations compare?

NVIDIA's forward P/E of 10.38 and PEG of 0.29 suggest reasonable pricing relative to expected growth, despite a trailing P/E of 31.6. Rivian's negative trailing P/E of -6.08 and PEG of -0.25 stem from its current lack of net profitability, making direct comparison difficult.

Which stock has performed better recently?

Over 1 year, Rivian returned 99.31% versus NVIDIA's 75.11%. However, NVIDIA is positive YTD at 2.83% while Rivian is down -9.60% YTD, and Rivian's maximum 5-year drawdown of -59.47% is deeper than NVIDIA's -29.43%.

Which company has a stronger balance sheet?

NVIDIA carries an 'A' balance sheet verdict, supported by interest coverage of 27.55 and a current ratio of 3.44. Rivian's interest coverage of 11.34 and current ratio of 2.10 are lower, though both companies report negative net debt/EBITDA figures.

Related comparisons

• AAPL vs NVDA
• AAPL vs RIVN
• AMD vs RIVN
• AMZN vs RIVN
• NVDA vs AMD
• NVDA vs AMZN