Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Ibotta, Inc.
How Ibotta, Inc. stacks up
IBTA · against 1,666 other Technology companies
Valuation
25/ 100
Near the bottom of its peers.
Ranked #1,243 of 1,667 · scores higher than 25% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score167 peers with a valuation score of 20–29, including IBTA · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 25?
Weighted metrics compared with all Technology companies.Mainly because of its EBITDA yield and earnings yield, which are weaker than most Technology peers.
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. EBITDA yield: -0.2% vs peer median 4.2%
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. Earnings yield: -0.8% vs peer median 2.2%
- Free cash flow yield is close to the peer norm. Free cash flow yield: 5.3% vs peer median 2.7%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = IBTA, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | IBTA | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 1,632 reported | -0.8% | 2.3% | 23% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 1,698 reported | -0.6% | 4.3% | 16% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 725 reported | 4.2% | 2.7% | 60% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 1,634 reported | 17.2% | 33.4% | 25% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around IBTA| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 328.2B KRW (≈$236M) | 100 | 58 | |
| 1 | 252.6B KRW (≈$182M) | 100 | 54 | |
| 1 | 443.2B KRW (≈$319M) | 100 | 64 | |
| 1 | 569.9B KRW (≈$410M) | 100 | 88 | |
| 1 | 111M MYR (≈$24M) | 100 | 72 | |
| 1,243 | 7.7B SAR (≈$2.1B) | 25 | 32 | |
| 1,243 |
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