Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Dine Brands Global, Inc.
How Dine Brands Global, Inc. stacks up
DIN · against 1,552 other Consumer Cyclical companies
Valuation
34/ 100
Below the middle of the pack.
Ranked #1,018 of 1,553 · scores higher than 34% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score156 peers with a valuation score of 30–39, including DIN · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 34?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.Mainly because of its free cash flow yield and earnings yield, which are weaker than most Consumer Cyclical peers.
- less free cash flow for the price paid: weaker than 76% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 1.4% vs peer median 6.1%
- lower earnings for the price paid: weaker than 70% of peers. Earnings yield: 1.5% vs peer median 4.4%
- EBITDA yield is close to the peer norm. EBITDA yield: 8.7% vs peer median 8.8%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = DIN, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | DIN | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 1,527 reported | 1.7% | 4.4% | 30% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 1,593 reported | 8.7% | 8.8% | 49% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 594 reported | 1.4% | 6.1% | 24% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 1,536 reported | -65.3% | 57.2% | 1% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around DIN| 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 | |
| 1,018 | 112.0B CNY (≈$15.7B) | 34 | 53 | |
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