Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Colliers International Group Inc.
How Colliers International Group Inc. stacks up
CIGI · against 662 other Real Estate companies
Valuation
53/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #309 of 663 · scores higher than 53% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score66 peers with a valuation score of 50–59, including CIGI · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 53?
Weighted metrics compared with all Real Estate companies.A mix: stronger EBITDA yield, but weaker earnings yield and free cash flow yield than most Real Estate peers.
- lower earnings for the price paid: weaker than 69% of peers. Earnings yield: 2.0% vs peer median 5.3%
- less free cash flow for the price paid: weaker than 69% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 4.3% vs peer median 6.5%
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 76% of peers. EBITDA yield: 7.3% vs peer median 5.4%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = CIGI, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | CIGI | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 708 reported | 2.0% | 5.3% | 31% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 681 reported | 7.3% | 5.3% | 76% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 307 reported | 4.3% | 6.8% | 31% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 724 reported | 29.3% | 112.8% | 8% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around CIGI| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 227M MYR (≈$50M) | 100 | 80 | |
| 1 | 6.0B BRL (≈$1.1B) | 100 | 91 | |
| 3 | 394M HKD (≈$50M) | 99 | 33 | |
| 3 | 2.9B HKD (≈$365M) | 99 | 76 | |
| 3 | 3.2B HKD (≈$407M) | 99 | 66 | |
| 303 | 430M USD | 54 | 34 | |
| 303 |
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