Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Camping World Holdings, Inc.
How Camping World Holdings, Inc. stacks up
CWH · against 1,552 other Consumer Cyclical companies
Valuation
39/ 100
Below the middle of the pack.
Ranked #940 of 1,553 · scores higher than 39% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score156 peers with a valuation score of 30–39, including CWH · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 39?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.Mainly because of its earnings yield and EBITDA yield, which are weaker than most Consumer Cyclical peers.
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. Earnings yield: -32.2% vs peer median 4.4%
- less operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: weaker than 64% of peers. EBITDA yield: 6.3% vs peer median 8.8%
- more free cash flow for the price paid: stronger than 84% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 16.3% vs peer median 6.1%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = CWH, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | CWH | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 1,527 reported | -32.2% | 4.4% | 4% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 1,593 reported | 6.3% | 8.8% | 36% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 594 reported | 16.3% | 6.1% | 84% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 1,536 reported | 80.0% | 57.2% | 65% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around CWH| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 198.5B KRW (≈$143M) | 100 | 73 | |
| 1 | 623.0B KRW (≈$449M) | 100 | 65 | |
| 1 | 382.5B KRW (≈$275M) | 100 | 57 | |
| 1 | 412.0B KRW (≈$297M) | 100 | 56 | |
| 1 | 1.49T KRW (≈$1.1B) | 100 | 73 | |
| 940 | 3.98T JPY (≈$27.1B) | 39 | 74 | |
| 940 |
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