Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Mattel, Inc.
How Mattel, Inc. stacks up
MAT · against 355 other Consumer Cyclical companies listed in US-listed
Growth
40/ 100
Below the middle of the pack.
Ranked #245 of 356 · scores higher than 30% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score38 peers with a growth score of 40–49, including MAT · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 40?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.Its metrics sit close to the Consumer Cyclical norm.
- slower growth in earnings per share: weaker than 62% of peers. Earnings per share growth: -8.4% vs peer median 4.2%
- 3-year revenue growth is close to the peer norm. 3-year revenue growth: 2.8% vs peer median 4.3%
- Revenue growth is close to the peer norm. Revenue growth: 2.9% vs peer median 3.7%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = MAT, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | MAT | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 358 reported | 2.9% | 5.9% | 36% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 249 reported | -8.4% | 6.2% | 35% | 33% | |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 353 reported | 2.8% | 4.1% | 42% | 33% |
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around MAT| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 79.0B USD | 100 | 61 | |
| 1 | 3.1B USD | 100 | 59 | |
| 1 | 47.0B USD | 100 | 61 | |
| 4 | 17.7B USD | 99 | 54 | |
| 4 | 293M USD | 99 | 89 | |
| 241 | 5.1B USD | 41 | 59 | |
| 245 | 5.9B USD | 40 | 39 | |
| 245 | 808M USD | 40 | 38 | |
| 245 | 5.6B USD | 40 | 47 | |
| 245 | 4.4B USD | 40 | 53 | |
| 249 | 454M USD | 39 | 45 | |
| 249 | 9.5B USD | 39 | 66 | |
| 249 | 1.57T USD | 39 | 30 | |
| 249 | 29.9B USD | 39 | 49 |
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