Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.
How Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. stacks up
AJG · against 268 other Financial Services companies
Valuation
23/ 100
Near the bottom of its peers.
Ranked #207 of 269 · scores higher than 23% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score27 peers with a valuation score of 20–29, including AJG · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 23?
Weighted metrics compared with all Financial Services companies.Mainly because of its earnings yield, free cash flow yield and EBITDA yield, which are weaker than most Financial Services peers.
- lower earnings for the price paid: weaker than 81% of peers. Earnings yield: 2.2% vs peer median 5.7%
- less free cash flow for the price paid: weaker than 67% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 3.3% vs peer median 6.1%
- less operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: weaker than 63% of peers. EBITDA yield: 5.2% vs peer median 6.9%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = AJG, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | AJG | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 410 reported | 2.2% | 5.6% | 19% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 206 reported | 5.2% | 6.8% | 37% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 183 reported | 3.3% | 6.1% | 33% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 401 reported | 33.8% | 83.1% | 25% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around AJG| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 498M USD | 100 | 90 | |
| 1 | 641M USD | 100 | 74 | |
| 3 | 82M USD | 99 | 78 | |
| 3 | 827M USD | 99 | 62 | |
| 3 | 659M USD | 99 | 72 | |
| 201 | 16.5B GBP (≈$21.4B) | 25 | 41 | |
| 204 | 345M USD |
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