Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
How Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. stacks up
FIS · against 1,666 other Technology companies
Valuation
94/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #93 of 1,667 · scores higher than 94% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score175 peers with a valuation score of 90–100, including FIS · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 94?
Weighted metrics compared with all Technology companies.Mainly thanks to its earnings yield, free cash flow yield and EBITDA yield, which are stronger than most Technology peers.
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 76% of peers. EBITDA yield: 10.3% vs peer median 4.2%
- more free cash flow for the price paid: stronger than 89% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 14.0% vs peer median 2.7%
- higher earnings for the price paid: stronger than 98% of peers. Earnings yield: 16.8% vs peer median 2.2%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = FIS, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | FIS | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 1,632 reported | 16.7% | 2.3% | 98% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 1,698 reported | 8.7% | 4.3% | 76% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 725 reported | 9.6% | 2.7% | 89% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 1,634 reported | 79.7% | 33.4% | 86% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around FIS| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 328.2B KRW (≈$236M) | 100 | 58 | |
| 1 | 252.6B KRW (≈$182M) | 100 | 54 | |
| 1 | 443.2B KRW (≈$319M) | 100 | 64 | |
| 1 | 569.9B KRW (≈$410M) | 100 | 88 | |
| 1 | 111M MYR (≈$24M) | 100 | 72 | |
| 93 | 76.2B JPY (≈$518M) | 94 | 55 | |
| 93 |
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