Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Adamas Trust, Inc.
How Adamas Trust, Inc. stacks up
ADAM · against 245 other Real Estate companies of similar size
Growth
99/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #2 of 246 · scores higher than 98% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score27 peers with a growth score of 90–100, including ADAM · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 99?
Weighted metrics compared with all Real Estate companies.Mainly thanks to its 3-year revenue growth, revenue growth and earnings per share growth, which are stronger than most Real Estate peers.
- faster growth in earnings per share: stronger than 92% of peers. Earnings per share growth: 226.7% vs peer median 11.2%
- faster revenue growth over the last year: stronger than 94% of peers. Revenue growth: 47.7% vs peer median 3.0%
- faster revenue growth over three years: stronger than 100% of peers. 3-year revenue growth: 243.7% vs peer median 3.8%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = ADAM, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | ADAM | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 249 reported | 47.7% | 2.6% | 93% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 143 reported | 226.7% | 8.7% | 92% | 33% | |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 244 reported | 243.7% | 2.8% | 100% | 33% |
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around ADAM| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 65.5B INR (≈$786M) | 100 | 57 | |
| 2 | 3.1B CNY (≈$440M) | 99 | 67 | |
| 2 | 71.4B JPY (≈$486M) | 99 | 73 | |
| 2 | 517M USD | 99 | 79 | |
| 2 | 2.4B BRL (≈$428M) | 99 | 92 | |
| 6 | 4.7B HKD (≈$597M) | 98 | 73 | |
| 6 | 946M USD | 98 | 56 | |
| 6 | 332M USD | 98 | 45 |
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