Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Kyivstar Group Ltd.
How Kyivstar Group Ltd. stacks up
KYIV · against 470 other Communication Services companies
Valuation
74/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #121 of 471 · scores higher than 74% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score47 peers with a valuation score of 70–79, including KYIV · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 74?
Weighted metrics compared with all Communication Services companies.Mainly thanks to its EBITDA yield and earnings yield, which are stronger than most Communication Services peers.
- Free cash flow yield is close to the peer norm. Free cash flow yield: 10.1% vs peer median 7.4%
- higher earnings for the price paid: stronger than 64% of peers. Earnings yield: 4.0% vs peer median 2.9%
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 81% of peers. EBITDA yield: 18.9% vs peer median 8.6%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = KYIV, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | KYIV | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 461 reported | 5.2% | 3.0% | 64% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 493 reported | 18.9% | 8.7% | 81% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 227 reported | 8.9% | 7.6% | 55% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 467 reported | 45.0% | 48.9% | 47% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around KYIV| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 105.8B KRW (≈$76M) | 100 | 80 | |
| 1 | 694.0B KRW (≈$500M) | 100 | 66 | |
| 3 | 2.6B HKD (≈$329M) | 99 | 80 | |
| 3 | 3.1B HKD (≈$398M) | 99 | 74 | |
| 3 | 226M SEK (≈$23M) | 99 | 63 | |
| 117 | 7.9B TWD (≈$244M) | 75 | 73 | |
| 117 |
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