Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
AGRO · against 232 other Consumer Defensive companies of similar size
Ranked #188 of 233 · scores higher than 19% of peers · safety percentile 27
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the safety percentile (higher = safer; 67+ earns the lower-risk grade)20 peers with a safety percentile of 20–29, including AGRO · Click a bar to see the companies
Mainly because of its debt / equity, which is weaker than most Consumer Defensive peers.
Risk is relative to the sector, not a bankruptcy probability. Banks and brokers carry high leverage by design, and share buybacks can shrink equity and current assets, which raises debt/equity on paper.
| Metric | AGRO | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debt / equityLower is better · 224 reported | 1.24× | 0.39× | 13% | 33% | |
| BetaLower is better · 225 reported | -0.05 | 0.32 | 93% | 33% | |
| Current ratioHigher is better · 224 reported | 1.73× | 1.72× | 51% | 33% |
| Rank | Company | Market cap | Safety | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 159.9B JPY (≈$1.1B) | 100 | 74 | |
| 1 | 60.4B THB (≈$1.7B) | 100 | 65 | |
| 3 | 6.6B HKD (≈$843M) | 99 | 78 | |
| 4 | 2.74T KRW (≈$2.0B) | 99 | 49 | |
| 5 | 176.3B JPY (≈$1.2B) | 98 | 75 | |
| 184 | 35.1B MXN (≈$1.9B) | 29 | 50 | |
| 185 | 1.3B USD | 28 | 23 | |
| 186 | 6.5B CNY (≈$907M) | 28 | 16 | |
| 187 | 784M USD | 27 | 40 | |
| 188 | 1.4B USD | 27 | 22 | |
| 189 | 3.6B AUD (≈$2.4B) | 26 | 42 | |
| 190 | 101.8B JPY (≈$692M) | 26 | 28 | |
| 191 | 181.9B JPY (≈$1.2B) | 25 | 42 | |
| 192 | 6.0B DKK (≈$900M) | 25 | 48 |
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