Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Hasbro, Inc.
How Hasbro, Inc. stacks up
HAS · against 1,585 other Consumer Cyclical companies
Growth
81/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #295 of 1,586 · scores higher than 81% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score158 peers with a growth score of 80–89, including HAS · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 81?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.Mainly thanks to its earnings per share growth and revenue growth, which are stronger than most Consumer Cyclical peers.
- slower revenue growth over three years: weaker than 80% of peers. 3-year revenue growth: -3.7% vs peer median 4.3%
- faster revenue growth over the last year: stronger than 86% of peers. Revenue growth: 17.0% vs peer median 3.7%
- Earnings per share turned from a loss to a profit. Earnings per share growth: — vs peer median 4.2%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = HAS, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | HAS | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 1,593 reported | 17.0% | 3.7% | 86% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 1,125 reported | Not reported | 4.1% | — | — | 33% |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 1,578 reported | -3.7% | 4.3% | 20% | 33% |
A metric that is not reported is left out of the score; the other weights are rescaled.
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around HAS| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 158.6B CNY (≈$22.2B) | 100 | 60 | |
| 1 | 1.3B MYR (≈$277M) | 100 | 60 | |
| 1 | 241M MYR (≈$53M) | 100 | 86 | |
| 1 | 184.4B HKD (≈$23.6B) | 100 | 91 | |
| 1 | 177.5B INR (≈$2.1B) | 100 | ||
| 295 | 392.0B JPY (≈$2.7B) | 81 | 77 | |
| 295 |
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