Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Garrett Motion Inc.
How Garrett Motion Inc. stacks up
GTX · against 355 other Consumer Cyclical companies listed in US-listed
Valuation
77/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #42 of 356 · scores higher than 87% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score25 peers with a valuation score of 70–79, including GTX · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 77?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.Mainly thanks to its earnings yield, EBITDA yield and free cash flow yield, which are stronger than most Consumer Cyclical peers.
- more free cash flow for the price paid: stronger than 70% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 10.1% vs peer median 6.0%
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 75% of peers. EBITDA yield: 13.1% vs peer median 8.6%
- higher earnings for the price paid: stronger than 85% of peers. Earnings yield: 9.9% vs peer median 4.3%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = GTX, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | GTX | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 352 reported | 9.4% | 4.1% | 88% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 359 reported | 13.5% | 8.3% | 87% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 325 reported | 10.1% | 5.2% | 79% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 352 reported | -18.7% | 36.2% | 6% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around GTX| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6.6B USD | 99 | 69 | |
| 2 | 62M USD | 98 | 79 | |
| 3 | 7.9B USD | 97 | 68 | |
| 3 | 6.3B USD | 97 | 60 | |
| 5 | 400M USD | 96 | 59 | |
| 38 | 6.7B USD | 80 | 62 | |
| 38 | 221M USD | 80 | 48 |
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