Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to AECOM
How AECOM stacks up
ACM · against 361 other Industrials companies of similar size
Valuation
44/ 100
Below the middle of the pack.
Ranked #233 of 362 · scores higher than 35% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score64 peers with a valuation score of 40–49, including ACM · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 44?
Weighted metrics compared with all Industrials companies.Its metrics sit close to the Industrials norm.
- less free cash flow for the price paid: weaker than 61% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 2.4% vs peer median 3.7%
- Earnings yield is close to the peer norm. Earnings yield: 3.4% vs peer median 3.8%
- EBITDA yield is close to the peer norm. EBITDA yield: 7.0% vs peer median 6.9%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = ACM, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | ACM | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 348 reported | 4.3% | 4.2% | 54% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 363 reported | 8.4% | 7.4% | 61% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 182 reported | 2.4% | 4.0% | 30% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 345 reported | 25.7% | 34.5% | 35% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around ACM| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 18.14T KRW (≈$13.1B) | 100 | 76 | |
| 2 | 9.3B SGD (≈$7.1B) | 99 | 56 | |
| 3 | 6.28T KRW (≈$4.5B) | 98 | 53 | |
| 3 | 37.8B HKD (≈$4.8B) | 98 | 86 | |
| 3 | 49.8B HKD (≈$6.4B) | 98 | 74 | |
| 225 | 31.2B DKK (≈$4.7B) | 45 | 39 | |
| 225 | 12.5B USD | 45 | 56 | |
| 225 | 10.2B USD | 45 | 28 | |
| 225 | 6.8B GBP (≈$8.9B) | 45 | 47 | |
| 233 | 8.5B USD | 44 | 31 | |
| 233 | 15.6B USD | 44 | 46 | |
| 233 | 5.5B GBP (≈$7.2B) | 44 | 47 | |
| 233 | 8.2B USD | 44 | 61 | |
| 237 | 1.02T JPY (≈$6.9B) | 43 | 41 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score