Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc.
How Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc. stacks up
GLPI · against 662 other Real Estate companies
Valuation
68/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #210 of 663 · scores higher than 68% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score67 peers with a valuation score of 60–69, including GLPI · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 68?
Weighted metrics compared with all Real Estate companies.Mainly thanks to its EBITDA yield and earnings yield, which are stronger than most Real Estate peers.
- Free cash flow yield is close to the peer norm. Free cash flow yield: 10.2% vs peer median 6.5%
- higher earnings for the price paid: stronger than 68% of peers. Earnings yield: 1.3% vs peer median 5.3%
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 81% of peers. EBITDA yield: 8.6% vs peer median 5.4%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = GLPI, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | GLPI | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 708 reported | 8.7% | 5.3% | 68% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 681 reported | 8.3% | 5.3% | 81% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 307 reported | 5.4% | 6.8% | 40% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 724 reported | 43.7% | 112.8% | 14% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around GLPI| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 227M MYR (≈$50M) | 100 | 80 | |
| 1 | 6.0B BRL (≈$1.1B) | 100 | 91 | |
| 3 | 394M HKD (≈$50M) | 99 | 33 | |
| 3 | 2.9B HKD (≈$365M) | 99 | 76 | |
| 3 | 3.2B HKD (≈$407M) | 99 | 66 | |
| 210 | 4.7B HKD (≈$597M) | 68 | 73 | |
| 210 |
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