Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Lindblad Expeditions Holdings, Inc.
How Lindblad Expeditions Holdings, Inc. stacks up
LIND · against 1,552 other Consumer Cyclical companies
Valuation
23/ 100
Near the bottom of its peers.
Ranked #1,189 of 1,553 · scores higher than 23% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score155 peers with a valuation score of 20–29, including LIND · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 23?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.Mainly because of its earnings yield and EBITDA yield, which are weaker than most Consumer Cyclical peers.
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. Earnings yield: -1.0% vs peer median 4.4%
- less operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: weaker than 72% of peers. EBITDA yield: 5.1% vs peer median 8.8%
- Free cash flow yield is close to the peer norm. Free cash flow yield: 5.1% vs peer median 6.1%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = LIND, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | LIND | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 1,527 reported | -1.2% | 4.4% | 17% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 1,593 reported | 5.3% | 8.8% | 28% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 594 reported | 5.1% | 6.1% | 44% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 1,536 reported | -9.1% | 57.2% | 2% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around LIND| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 198.5B KRW (≈$143M) | 100 | 73 | |
| 1 | 623.0B KRW (≈$449M) | 100 | 65 | |
| 1 | 382.5B KRW (≈$275M) | 100 | 57 | |
| 1 | 412.0B KRW (≈$297M) | 100 | 56 | |
| 1 | 1.49T KRW (≈$1.1B) | 100 | 73 | |
| 1,189 | 3.8B GBP (≈$5.0B) | 23 | 30 | |
| 1,189 |
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