Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
CON · against 1,336 other Healthcare companies
Ranked #449 of 1,337 · scores higher than 66% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score134 peers with a valuation score of 60–69, including CON · Click a bar to see the companies
Mainly thanks to its free cash flow yield, earnings yield and EBITDA yield, which are stronger than most Healthcare peers.
| Metric | CON | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 1,287 reported | 3.9% | 1.5% | 70% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 1,357 reported | 6.5% | 4.2% | 64% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 711 reported | 5.2% | -1.0% | 80% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 1,306 reported | 9.3% | 37.9% | 13% | Context only |
| 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 | |
| 449 | 83.0B CNY (≈$11.6B) | 66 |
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
| 62 |
| 449 | 15.0B CNY (≈$2.1B) | 66 | 55 |
| 449 | 70.2B JPY (≈$477M) | 66 | 59 |
| 449 | 285.2B USD | 66 | 63 |
| 449 | 5.1B USD | 66 | 54 |
| 449 | 27.3B USD | 66 | 55 |
| 449 | 217.6B INR (≈$2.6B) | 66 | 67 |
| 449 | 4.4B USD | 66 | 66 |
| 449 | 3.2B USD | 66 | 65 |