Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to The Coca-Cola Company
How The Coca-Cola Company stacks up
KO · against 800 other Consumer Defensive companies
Valuation
27/ 100
Below the middle of the pack.
Ranked #582 of 801 · scores higher than 27% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score80 peers with a valuation score of 20–29, including KO · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 27?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Defensive companies.Mainly because of its EBITDA yield and free cash flow yield, which are weaker than most Consumer Defensive peers.
- less operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: weaker than 77% of peers. EBITDA yield: 4.0% vs peer median 8.9%
- less free cash flow for the price paid: weaker than 67% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 3.9% vs peer median 6.3%
- Earnings yield is close to the peer norm. Earnings yield: 3.9% vs peer median 4.7%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = KO, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | KO | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 772 reported | 3.9% | 4.7% | 43% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 813 reported | 4.3% | 9.2% | 23% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 301 reported | 3.9% | 6.4% | 33% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 724 reported | 9.8% | 52.1% | 7% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around KO| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 393.4B KRW (≈$283M) | 100 | 72 | |
| 1 | 254.3B KRW (≈$183M) | 100 | 70 | |
| 1 | 3.5B MYR (≈$772M) | 100 | 82 | |
| 1 | 117M SGD (≈$89M) | 100 | 89 | |
| 5 | 31.6B HKD (≈$4.0B) | 98 | 76 | |
| 574 | 224.7B INR (≈$2.7B) | 28 | 70 | |
| 582 |
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