Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Bicycle Therapeutics plc
How Bicycle Therapeutics plc stacks up
BCYC · against 1,336 other Healthcare companies
Valuation
33/ 100
Below the middle of the pack.
Ranked #857 of 1,337 · scores higher than 33% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score133 peers with a valuation score of 30–39, including BCYC · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 33?
Weighted metrics compared with all Healthcare companies.Mainly because of its free cash flow yield and earnings yield, which are weaker than most Healthcare peers.
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. Free cash flow yield: -81.3% vs peer median 0.0%
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. Earnings yield: -74.3% vs peer median 1.5%
- Cash exceeds market value plus debt, so EBITDA yield is not meaningful and is left out.
Metric by metric
Position: dot = BCYC, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | BCYC | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 1,287 reported | -55.3% | 1.5% | 5% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 1,357 reported | 87.9% | 4.2% | 99% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 711 reported | -81.0% | -1.0% | 3% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 1,306 reported | 239.6% | 37.9% | 98% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around BCYC| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 21.3B HKD (≈$2.7B) | 99 | 68 | |
| 1 | 1.1B HKD (≈$146M) | 99 | 72 | |
| 1 | 14.2B HKD (≈$1.8B) | 99 | 64 | |
| 1 | 52.2B HKD (≈$6.7B) | 99 | 56 | |
| 1 | 3.5B HKD (≈$451M) | 99 | 51 | |
| 857 | 1.2B USD | 33 |
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