Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Johnson Outdoors Inc.
How Johnson Outdoors Inc. stacks up
JOUT · against 1,585 other Consumer Cyclical companies
Growth
59/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #643 of 1,586 · scores higher than 59% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score159 peers with a growth score of 50–59, including JOUT · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 59?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.A mix: stronger revenue growth, but weaker 3-year revenue growth than most Consumer Cyclical peers.
- slower revenue growth over three years: weaker than 83% of peers. 3-year revenue growth: -4.7% vs peer median 4.3%
- Still loss-making, but the loss per share narrowed. Earnings per share growth: — vs peer median 4.2%
- faster revenue growth over the last year: stronger than 87% of peers. Revenue growth: 17.5% vs peer median 3.7%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = JOUT, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | JOUT | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 1,593 reported | 17.5% | 3.7% | 87% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 1,125 reported | Not reported | 4.1% | — | — | 33% |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 1,578 reported | -4.7% | 4.3% | 17% | 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 JOUT| 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 | ||
| 643 | 6.5B EUR (≈$7.2B) | 59 | 58 | |
| 643 |
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