Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Flowers Foods, Inc.
How Flowers Foods, Inc. stacks up
FLO · against 798 other Consumer Defensive companies
Valuation
70/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #237 of 799 · scores higher than 70% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score80 peers with a valuation score of 70–79, including FLO · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 70?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Defensive companies.Mainly thanks to its free cash flow yield and EBITDA yield, which are stronger than most Consumer Defensive peers.
- Earnings yield is close to the peer norm. Earnings yield: 3.9% vs peer median 4.5%
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 78% of peers. EBITDA yield: 10.2% vs peer median 8.7%
- more free cash flow for the price paid: stronger than 92% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 21.5% vs peer median 6.2%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = FLO, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | FLO | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 771 reported | 4.0% | 4.5% | 45% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 812 reported | 14.4% | 8.9% | 78% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 312 reported | 21.5% | 6.3% | 92% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 767 reported | 92.9% | 54.4% | 75% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around FLO| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 399.1B KRW (≈$287M) | 100 | 72 | |
| 1 | 242.6B KRW (≈$175M) | 100 | 70 | |
| 1 | 3.6B MYR (≈$796M) | 100 | 82 | |
| 1 | 101M SGD (≈$77M) | 100 | 89 | |
| 5 | 456M HKD (≈$58M) | 98 | 70 | |
| 237 | 15.5B HKD (≈$2.0B) | 70 | 55 | |
| 237 |
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