Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Meta Platforms, Inc.
How Meta Platforms, Inc. stacks up
META · against 475 other Communication Services companies
Valuation
35/ 100
Below the middle of the pack.
Ranked #308 of 476 · scores higher than 35% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score47 peers with a valuation score of 30–39, including META · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 35?
Weighted metrics compared with all Communication Services companies.Mainly because of its free cash flow yield and EBITDA yield, which are weaker than most Communication Services peers.
- less free cash flow for the price paid: weaker than 76% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 2.2% vs peer median 7.4%
- less operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: weaker than 64% of peers. EBITDA yield: 5.9% vs peer median 8.7%
- Earnings yield is close to the peer norm. Earnings yield: 3.7% vs peer median 3.3%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = META, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | META | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 461 reported | 3.7% | 3.3% | 53% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 491 reported | 5.9% | 8.7% | 36% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 219 reported | 2.2% | 7.6% | 24% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 440 reported | 14.2% | 47.2% | 18% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around META| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 718.4B KRW (≈$517M) | 100 | 66 | |
| 1 | 243M SEK (≈$24M) | 100 | 64 | |
| 3 | 130.4B KRW (≈$94M) | 99 | 80 | |
| 3 | 2.7B HKD (≈$343M) | 99 | 80 | |
| 3 | 3.3B HKD (≈$423M) | 99 | 74 | |
| 303 | 473.1B INR (≈$5.7B) | 36 | 38 | |
| 303 |
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