Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Carrier Global Corporation
How Carrier Global Corporation stacks up
CARR · against 2,393 other Industrials companies
Valuation
39/ 100
Below the middle of the pack.
Ranked #1,449 of 2,394 · scores higher than 39% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score240 peers with a valuation score of 30–39, including CARR · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 39?
Weighted metrics compared with all Industrials companies.Mainly because of its earnings yield and EBITDA yield, which are weaker than most Industrials peers.
- lower earnings for the price paid: weaker than 63% of peers. Earnings yield: 2.7% vs peer median 3.8%
- less operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: weaker than 61% of peers. EBITDA yield: 5.3% vs peer median 6.9%
- Free cash flow yield is close to the peer norm. Free cash flow yield: 4.2% vs peer median 3.7%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = CARR, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | CARR | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 2,368 reported | 2.5% | 3.8% | 37% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 2,432 reported | 5.4% | 7.0% | 39% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 795 reported | 4.2% | 3.7% | 55% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 2,381 reported | 28.8% | 50.5% | 28% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around CARR| 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 | |
| 1,449 | 5.3B CNY (≈$742M) | 39 |
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