Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Arlo Technologies, Inc.
How Arlo Technologies, Inc. stacks up
ARLO · against 2,393 other Industrials companies
Valuation
24/ 100
Near the bottom of its peers.
Ranked #1,808 of 2,394 · scores higher than 24% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score239 peers with a valuation score of 20–29, including ARLO · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 24?
Weighted metrics compared with all Industrials companies.Mainly because of its EBITDA yield and earnings yield, which are weaker than most Industrials peers.
- less operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: weaker than 85% of peers. EBITDA yield: 1.1% vs peer median 6.9%
- lower earnings for the price paid: weaker than 67% of peers. Earnings yield: 2.1% vs peer median 3.8%
- Free cash flow yield is close to the peer norm. Free cash flow yield: 4.5% vs peer median 3.7%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = ARLO, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | ARLO | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 2,368 reported | 2.0% | 3.8% | 33% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 2,432 reported | 1.1% | 7.0% | 15% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 795 reported | 4.5% | 3.7% | 57% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 2,381 reported | 10.8% | 50.5% | 8% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around ARLO| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 704.9B KRW (≈$508M) | 100 | 66 | |
| 1 | 18.14T KRW (≈$13.1B) | 100 | 76 | |
| 1 | 281.4B KRW (≈$203M) | 100 | 38 | |
| 1 | 4.69T KRW (≈$3.4B) | 100 | 59 | |
| 1 | 42.1B TRY (≈$1.3B) | 100 | 58 | |
| 1,808 | 140.3B CNY (≈$19.6B) | 24 | 44 |
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