Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Legend Biotech Corporation
How Legend Biotech Corporation stacks up
LEGN · against 588 other Healthcare companies listed in US-listed
Valuation
8/ 100
Near the bottom of its peers.
Ranked #313 of 589 · scores higher than 3% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score277 peers with a valuation score of 0–9, including LEGN · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 8?
Weighted metrics compared with all Healthcare companies.Mainly because of its EBITDA yield and earnings yield, which are weaker than most Healthcare peers.
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. EBITDA yield: -1.3% vs peer median 4.0%
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. Earnings yield: -7.1% vs peer median 1.5%
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. Free cash flow yield: -3.1% vs peer median 0.0%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = LEGN, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | LEGN | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 577 reported | -2.3% | -4.3% | 55% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 578 reported | -1.3% | -0.8% | 49% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 553 reported | -2.9% | -2.3% | 47% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 587 reported | 29.5% | 25.9% | 55% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around LEGN| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 256M USD | 98 | 80 | |
| 2 | 595M USD | 96 | 97 | |
| 2 | 433M USD | 96 | 81 | |
| 2 | 289M USD | 96 | 57 | |
| 2 | 810M USD | 96 | 69 | |
| 313 | 879M USD | 8 | 36 | |
| 313 |
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