Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Lyft, Inc.
How Lyft, Inc. stacks up
LYFT · against 1,666 other Technology companies
Valuation
80/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #326 of 1,667 · scores higher than 80% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score167 peers with a valuation score of 80–89, including LYFT · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 80?
Weighted metrics compared with all Technology companies.Mainly thanks to its earnings yield and free cash flow yield, which are stronger than most Technology peers.
- less operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: weaker than 76% of peers. EBITDA yield: 0.5% vs peer median 4.2%
- more free cash flow for the price paid: stronger than 96% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 17.6% vs peer median 2.7%
- higher earnings for the price paid: stronger than 100% of peers. Earnings yield: 45.4% vs peer median 2.2%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = LYFT, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | LYFT | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 1,632 reported | 41.2% | 2.3% | 100% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 1,698 reported | 0.8% | 4.3% | 24% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 725 reported | 17.6% | 2.7% | 96% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 1,634 reported | 47.8% | 33.4% | 69% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around LYFT| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 328.2B KRW (≈$236M) | 100 | 58 | |
| 1 | 252.6B KRW (≈$182M) | 100 | 54 | |
| 1 | 443.2B KRW (≈$319M) | 100 | 64 | |
| 1 | 569.9B KRW (≈$410M) | 100 | 88 | |
| 1 | 111M MYR (≈$24M) | 100 | 72 | |
| 326 | 1.7B USD | 80 | 52 | |
| 326 |
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