Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Granite Ridge Resources, Inc.
How Granite Ridge Resources, Inc. stacks up
GRNT · against 386 other Energy companies
Valuation
66/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #131 of 387 · scores higher than 66% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score39 peers with a valuation score of 60–69, including GRNT · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 66?
Weighted metrics compared with all Energy companies.Mainly thanks to its EBITDA yield, which is stronger than most Energy peers.
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. Free cash flow yield: -15.2% vs peer median 6.2%
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. Earnings yield: -4.1% vs peer median 5.2%
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 88% of peers. EBITDA yield: 25.9% vs peer median 12.1%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = GRNT, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | GRNT | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 384 reported | -4.3% | 5.8% | 10% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 390 reported | 25.9% | 12.4% | 88% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 249 reported | -15.2% | 6.0% | 6% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 378 reported | 83.4% | 60.0% | 69% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around GRNT| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.6B MYR (≈$347M) | 100 | 80 | |
| 2 | 9.94T KRW (≈$7.2B) | 99 | 65 | |
| 2 | 2.2B MYR (≈$487M) | 99 | 60 | |
| 2 | 942M USD | 99 | 69 | |
| 2 | 517M CAD (≈$378M) | 99 | 47 | |
| 127 | 22.6B CAD (≈$16.5B) | 67 | 66 | |
| 131 |
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