Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to GRAIL, Inc.
How GRAIL, Inc. stacks up
GRAL · against 1,336 other Healthcare companies
Valuation
8/ 100
Near the bottom of its peers.
Ranked #953 of 1,337 · scores higher than 8% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score385 peers with a valuation score of 0–9, including GRAL · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 8?
Weighted metrics compared with all Healthcare companies.Mainly because of its EBITDA yield, earnings yield and free cash flow yield, which are weaker than most Healthcare peers.
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. EBITDA yield: -6.9% vs peer median 4.0%
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. Earnings yield: -6.3% vs peer median 1.5%
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. Free cash flow yield: -4.8% vs peer median 0.0%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = GRAL, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | GRAL | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 1,287 reported | -7.0% | 1.5% | 24% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 1,357 reported | -6.9% | 4.2% | 19% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 711 reported | -4.8% | -1.0% | 38% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 1,306 reported | 40.8% | 37.9% | 54% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around GRAL| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 21.3B HKD (≈$2.7B) | 99 | 68 | |
| 1 | 1.1B HKD (≈$146M) | 99 | 72 | |
| 1 | 14.2B HKD (≈$1.8B) | 99 | 64 | |
| 1 | 52.2B HKD (≈$6.7B) | 99 | 56 | |
| 1 | 3.5B HKD (≈$451M) | 99 | 51 | |
| 953 | 221M USD | 8 | 33 |
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