Start 30 days free, no card. Full Pro access for a month, then decide. Start free
Loading
Start 30 days free, no card. Full Pro access for a month, then decide. Start free
No 8-K events recorded for this window.
Aptiv opened FY2026 with Q1 revenue of $5.1 billion growing 1% on an adjusted basis with EPS of $1.71 up slightly, as the Versigent spin-off was completed on April 1 creating a pure-play advanced technology automotive supplier. Record Q1 bookings of $7 billion validated commercial momentum in high-voltage architecture, active safety, and software-defined vehicle platforms. Total revenue grew 1% despite deteriorating global vehicle production volumes.
Demand | Revenue Growth | Margin | Geographic Expansion | Cost Pressure | Competitive Dynamics | Product Launch | Macroeconomic | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024Q4 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| 2025Q1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| 2025Q2 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 2025Q3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | |
| 2025Q4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 2026Q1 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| '24Q4 | '25Q1 | '25Q2 | '25Q3 | '25Q4 | '26Q1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demand | 1 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Revenue Growth | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| Margin | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Geographic Expansion | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 5 |
| Cost Pressure | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Competitive Dynamics | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | |
| Product Launch | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
| Macroeconomic | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
The table scrolls sideways. Swipe it, or select it and use the arrow keys.
| Quarter | Revenue | Rev YoY | EPS | EPS YoY | Gross margin | Op margin | Net margin | FCF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY2024 Q4 | $4.91B | -0.2% | $1.14 | -64.6% | 23.0% | 15.6% | 5.5% | $894M |
| FY2025 Q1 | $4.83B | -1.6% | $-0.05 | -106.1% | 17.9% | 10.0% | -0.2% | $76M |
| FY2025 Q2 | $5.21B | +3.1% | $1.80 | -48.1% | 19.1% | 9.3% | 7.5% | $361M |
| FY2025 Q3 | $5.21B | +7.4% | $-1.63 | -210.1% | 19.5% | -3.4% | -6.8% | $441M |
| FY2025 Q4 | $5.15B | +5.0% | $0.63 | -44.7% | 19.8% | 7.6% | 2.7% | $651M |
| FY2026 Q1Selected | $5.09B | +5.4% | $0.88 | +1941.0% | 18.1% | 8.7% | 3.7% | $-362M |
| FY2026 Q2 | $3.27B | -37.1% | $1.17 | -35.0% | 23.7% | 11.2% | 7.6% | $33M |
Management’s own words, often on a non-GAAP, constant-currency, or adjusted basis — so these can differ from the GAAP figures above (e.g. constant-currency revenue growth excludes currency swings).
Calendar quarter Q1 2026Earnings call May 5, 2026
FY2026 Q1 in brief
Aptiv opened FY2026 with Q1 revenue of $5.1 billion growing 1% on an adjusted basis with EPS of $1.71 up slightly, as the Versigent spin-off was completed on April 1 creating a pure-play advanced technology automotive supplier.
Newest quarter FY2026 Q2 is part of Pro · see what Pro adds →
GAAP revenue YoY +5.41% → base 6. The base score is anchored to the GAAP revenue YoY band before transcript, EPS, and guidance adjustments.
Sources. Tellvest earnings-call sentiment score for Aptiv (APTV), FY2026 Q1: 6/10. Scores: Aptiv’s public earnings-call transcripts and SEC-reported results — the base band is anchored to reported GAAP revenue growth; transcript, EPS and guidance adjustments are applied separately (documented exceptions apply to a few issuers). Price: APTV daily closing prices for the trailing year; dots mark earnings calls, colored by that quarter’s score; the newest quarter’s score is part of Tellvest Pro. How to read a company earnings-call score.
What APTV and other companies said about each other on FY2026 Q1 earnings calls — extracted verbatim from public transcripts. Mentions from the newest quarter are a Pro feature.
“I'll confirm GM did award a very small portion of the wire harness content on the T1 program to another supplier. This portion represents a simpler portion of the harness.”
GM awarded a small, simpler build-to-print slice of the T1 wire-harness program to a rival supplier, while Aptiv retains the complex full-service harness content and characterizes the GM relationship as healthy.
Percentage of questions scored as challenging — where the analyst pushed back, pressed for specifics, or questioned management's assumptions.
| Analyst | Firm | Questions · challengingPercentage of questions scored as challenging — where the analyst pushed back, pressed for specifics, or questioned management's assumptions. |
|---|---|---|
| Joe Spak | UBS | 14 questions · 21% challenging |
| Mark Delaney | Goldman Sachs | 12 questions · 0% challenging |
| Colin Langan | Wells Fargo | 12 questions · 17% challenging |
| Dan Levy | Barclays | 10 questions · 10% challenging |
| Emmanuel Rosner | Wolfe Research | 10 questions · 10% challenging |
| Itay Michaeli | TD Cowen | 10 questions · 0% challenging |
| Chris McNally | Evercore ISI | 8 questions · 0% challenging |
| James Picariello | BNP Paribas | 8 questions · 0% challenging |
| Tom Narayan | RBC Capital Markets | 4 questions · 0% challenging |
| John Murphy | Bank of America | 2 questions · 0% challenging |
| Firm | Analysts | Questions · challengingPercentage of questions scored as challenging — where the analyst pushed back, pressed for specifics, or questioned management's assumptions. |
|---|---|---|
| UBS | 1 analyst | 14 questions · 21% challenging |
| Goldman Sachs | 1 analyst | 12 questions · 0% challenging |
| Wolfe Research | 2 analysts | 12 questions · 17% challenging |
| Wells Fargo | 1 analyst | 12 questions · 17% challenging |
| TD Cowen | 1 analyst | 10 questions · 0% challenging |
| Barclays | 1 analyst | 10 questions · 10% challenging |
| BNP Paribas | 1 analyst | 8 questions · 0% challenging |
| Evercore ISI | 1 analyst | 8 questions · 0% challenging |