Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Graham Holdings Company
How Graham Holdings Company stacks up
GHC · against 2,393 other Industrials companies
Valuation
65/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #827 of 2,394 · scores higher than 65% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score240 peers with a valuation score of 60–69, including GHC · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 65?
Weighted metrics compared with all Industrials companies.Mainly thanks to its earnings yield and EBITDA yield, which are stronger than most Industrials peers.
- Free cash flow yield is close to the peer norm. Free cash flow yield: 4.8% vs peer median 3.7%
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 77% of peers. EBITDA yield: 6.1% vs peer median 6.9%
- higher earnings for the price paid: stronger than 90% of peers. Earnings yield: 10.5% vs peer median 3.8%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = GHC, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | GHC | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 2,368 reported | 10.3% | 3.8% | 90% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 2,432 reported | 12.4% | 7.0% | 77% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 795 reported | 4.9% | 3.7% | 60% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 2,381 reported | 93.9% | 50.5% | 78% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around GHC| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 704.9B KRW (≈$508M) | 100 | 66 | |
| 1 | 18.14T KRW (≈$13.1B) | 100 | 76 | |
| 1 | 281.4B KRW (≈$203M) | 100 | 38 | |
| 1 | 4.69T KRW (≈$3.4B) | 100 | 59 | |
| 1 | 42.1B TRY (≈$1.3B) | 100 | 58 | |
| 827 | 7.8B USD | 65 | 55 | |
| 827 |
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