Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
IGIC · against 265 other Banks & Insurance companies of similar size
Ranked #17 of 266 · scores higher than 94% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the profitability score22 peers with a profitability score of 90–100, including IGIC · Click a bar to see the companies
Mainly thanks to its return on assets and return on equity, which are stronger than most Banks & Insurance peers.
| Metric | IGIC | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return on invested capitalHigher is better · 240 reported | 14.2% | 10.7% | 67% | Context only | |
| Operating marginHigher is better · 34 reported | Not reported | 14.8% | — | — | Context only |
| Return on assetsHigher is better · 268 reported | 6.1% | 1.1% | 96% | 50% | |
| Return on equityHigher is better · 266 reported | 16.3% | 10.6% | 85% | 50% | |
| Gross marginHigher is better · 279 reported | 43.4% | 0.0% | 82% | Context only |
Metrics with no weight are context only: for banks, brokers and insurers, free cash flow, EBITDA, gross margin and current ratio mostly reflect trading and funding flows, not the health of the business.
A metric that is not reported is left out of the score; the other weights are rescaled.
| Rank | Company | Market cap | Profitability | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 192.8B JPY (≈$1.3B) | 98 | 47 | |
| 1 | 98.7B JPY (≈$671M) | 98 | 43 | |
| 1 | 1.8B CHF (≈$2.1B) | 98 | ||
| 1 | 1.3B GBP (≈$1.7B) | 98 | ||
| 1 | 1.1B USD | 98 | 92 | |
| 13 | 1.57T ARS (≈$1.6B) | 94 | ||
| 13 | 67.0B TRY (≈$2.0B) | 94 | 59 | |
| 13 | 1.1B EUR (≈$1.2B) | 94 | 66 | |
| 17 | 1.2B USD | 93 | 77 | |
| 17 | 1.1B USD | 93 | 37 | |
| 19 | 5.2B MYR (≈$1.1B) | 91 | 47 | |
| 19 | 87.4B JPY (≈$594M) | 91 | 84 | |
| 21 | 79.3B JPY (≈$539M) | 90 | 37 | |
| 21 | 1.4B USD | 90 | 41 |
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