Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation
How Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation stacks up
AGM · against 96 other Financial Services companies of similar size
Growth
47/ 100
Below the middle of the pack.
Ranked #56 of 97 · scores higher than 43% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score10 peers with a growth score of 40–49, including AGM · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 47?
Weighted metrics compared with all Financial Services companies.Its metrics sit close to the Financial Services norm.
- Earnings per share growth is close to the peer norm. Earnings per share growth: 9.4% vs peer median 10.0%
- 3-year revenue growth is close to the peer norm. 3-year revenue growth: 9.7% vs peer median 10.0%
- Revenue growth is close to the peer norm. Revenue growth: 8.9% vs peer median 7.4%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = AGM, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | AGM | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 105 reported | 8.9% | 8.9% | 49% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 84 reported | 9.4% | 12.5% | 42% | 33% | |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 86 reported | 9.7% | 10.2% | 46% | 33% |
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around AGM| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.5B CHF (≈$1.7B) | 99 | 79 | |
| 2 | 23.7B CNY (≈$3.3B) | 97 | 59 | |
| 3 | 1.3B USD | 96 | 79 | |
| 4 | 1.4B USD | 95 | ||
| 5 | 3.0B USD | 94 | 56 | |
| 52 | 4.2B USD | 51 | 55 | |
| 53 | 588.9B JPY (≈$4.0B) | 50 | 58 | |
| 54 | 2.7B USD | 49 | 63 | |
| 54 | 1.5B USD | 49 | 58 | |
| 56 | 2.2B USD | 47 | 24 | |
| 57 | 14.7B CNY (≈$2.1B) | 46 | 76 | |
| 58 | 484.1B JPY (≈$3.3B) | 45 | 35 | |
| 58 | 2.3B EUR (≈$2.5B) | 45 | 76 | |
| 60 | 9.2B HKD (≈$1.2B) | 42 | 39 |
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