Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Amphenol Corporation
How Amphenol Corporation stacks up
APH · against 36 other Technology companies of similar size
Valuation
46/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #18 of 37 · scores higher than 53% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score9 peers with a valuation score of 40–49, including APH · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 46?
Weighted metrics compared with all Technology companies.Its metrics sit close to the Technology norm.
- Free cash flow yield is close to the peer norm. Free cash flow yield: 2.3% vs peer median 2.7%
- EBITDA yield is close to the peer norm. EBITDA yield: 4.1% vs peer median 4.2%
- Earnings yield is close to the peer norm. Earnings yield: 2.5% vs peer median 2.2%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = APH, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | APH | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 38 reported | 2.4% | 2.5% | 46% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 37 reported | 4.3% | 3.5% | 56% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 34 reported | 2.2% | 2.2% | 52% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 36 reported | 7.5% | 10.3% | 40% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around APH| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.46T TWD (≈$107.1B) | 81 | 58 | |
| 1 | 155.8B USD | 81 | 63 | |
| 1 | 164.9B USD | 81 | 89 | |
| 4 | 9.04T INR (≈$108.5B) | 77 | 74 | |
| 5 | 832.5B CNY (≈$116.5B) | 76 | 65 | |
| 14 | 382.5B USD | 62 | 55 | |
| 15 | 117.3B USD | 58 | 56 | |
| 16 | 265.8B USD | 54 | 68 | |
| 17 | 406.0B USD | 51 | 54 | |
| 18 | 207.6B USD | 46 | 61 | |
| 19 | 303.1B USD | 43 | 58 | |
| 20 | 137.9B USD | 42 | 59 | |
| 21 | 203.4B USD | 41 | 61 | |
| 22 | 108.7B USD | 40 | 55 |
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