Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Fortis Inc.
How Fortis Inc. stacks up
FTS · against 358 other Utilities companies
Valuation
37/ 100
Below the middle of the pack.
Ranked #225 of 359 · scores higher than 37% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score36 peers with a valuation score of 30–39, including FTS · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 37?
Weighted metrics compared with all Utilities companies.Mainly because of its EBITDA yield, free cash flow yield and earnings yield, which are weaker than most Utilities peers.
- less operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: weaker than 69% of peers. EBITDA yield: 7.2% vs peer median 8.6%
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. Free cash flow yield: -4.4% vs peer median 0.0%
- lower earnings for the price paid: weaker than 65% of peers. Earnings yield: 4.6% vs peer median 4.8%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = FTS, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | FTS | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 356 reported | 4.0% | 5.0% | 35% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 359 reported | 7.2% | 8.6% | 31% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 164 reported | -4.8% | -1.8% | 34% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 341 reported | 54.8% | 64.7% | 39% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around FTS| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.8B BRL (≈$497M) | 100 | 69 | |
| 1 | 32.24T IDR (≈$2.0B) | 100 | 78 | |
| 3 | 55.0B HKD (≈$7.0B) | 99 | 63 | |
| 3 | 6.8B CNY (≈$945M) | 99 | 73 | |
| 3 | 1.1B EUR (≈$1.2B) | 99 | 76 | |
| 222 | 22.0B USD | 38 | 44 | |
| 222 |
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