Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Expedia Group, Inc.
How Expedia Group, Inc. stacks up
EXPE · against 1,552 other Consumer Cyclical companies
Valuation
67/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #506 of 1,553 · scores higher than 67% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score155 peers with a valuation score of 60–69, including EXPE · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 67?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.Mainly thanks to its free cash flow yield and earnings yield, which are stronger than most Consumer Cyclical peers.
- EBITDA yield is close to the peer norm. EBITDA yield: 11.0% vs peer median 8.8%
- higher earnings for the price paid: stronger than 61% of peers. Earnings yield: 6.2% vs peer median 4.4%
- more free cash flow for the price paid: stronger than 78% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 13.6% vs peer median 6.1%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = EXPE, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | EXPE | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 1,527 reported | 5.6% | 4.4% | 61% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 1,593 reported | 8.5% | 8.8% | 48% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 594 reported | 13.0% | 6.1% | 78% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 1,536 reported | 3.5% | 57.2% | 5% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around EXPE| 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 | |
| 506 | 17.1B TWD (≈$530M) | 67 | 74 | |
| 506 |
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