Q1 earnings: How does NIO compare to XPeng and Li Auto?

NIO and XPeng both saw net losses in the first quarter, while Li Auto posted net income.

With the release of NIO's (NYSE: NIO) financial results, the trio of US-listed Chinese electric vehicles all reported first-quarter earnings.

With this article, we try to give readers a quick look at how the financials of NIO, XPeng (NYSE: XPEV), and Li Auto (NASDAQ: LI) compare in a few charts.

It should be noted that NIO and XPeng currently offer only battery electric vehicles (BEVs), a fast-growing but small market in China that currently accounts for about 30 percent of all passenger car sales.

Li Auto's full range of vehicles are extended-range electric vehicles (EREVs), essentially plug-in hybrids, targeting a much larger market.

In terms of quarterly deliveries, all three companies are essentially continuing to grow in 2020-2021.

In the first quarter of 2022 so far, NIO and XPeng have had a weak delivery performance, while Li Auto's has continued to grow, especially in the last two quarters.

In the first quarter of the year, Li Auto delivered 52,584 vehicles, while NIO and XPeng delivered 31,041 and 18,230, respectively.

Since all three companies derive their revenue primarily from car sales, the change in deliveries essentially corresponds to the change in revenue.

In the first quarter, Li Auto's revenue was RMB 18.8 billion, NIO was RMB 10.7 billion and XPeng was RMB 4.03 billion.

Their gross margins have been relatively stable over the past two years, with NIO and XPeng declining significantly over the past two quarters due to promotional activities.

Li Auto's gross margin has rebounded over the past two quarters after seeing a decline in the third quarter of last year.

NIO and XPeng has been continuing to face net losses while Li Auto has been profitable for multiple quarters.

In the first quarter, NIO had a net loss of RMB 4.74 billion, XPeng had a net loss of RMB 2.34 billion, and Li Auto achieved net income of RMB 934 million.

NIO Q1 earnings miss expectations, gross margin drops to 1.5%