Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to MillerKnoll, Inc.
How MillerKnoll, Inc. stacks up
MLKN · against 1,552 other Consumer Cyclical companies
Valuation
69/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #475 of 1,553 · scores higher than 69% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score155 peers with a valuation score of 60–69, including MLKN · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 69?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.Mainly thanks to its earnings yield and EBITDA yield, which are stronger than most Consumer Cyclical peers.
- Free cash flow yield is close to the peer norm. Free cash flow yield: 7.8% vs peer median 6.1%
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 65% of peers. EBITDA yield: 13.2% vs peer median 8.8%
- higher earnings for the price paid: stronger than 70% of peers. Earnings yield: 6.6% vs peer median 4.4%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = MLKN, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | MLKN | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 1,527 reported | 6.6% | 4.4% | 70% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 1,593 reported | 11.3% | 8.8% | 65% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 594 reported | 5.3% | 6.1% | 45% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 1,536 reported | 92.0% | 57.2% | 69% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around MLKN| 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 | |
| 475 | 386M EUR (≈$424M) | 69 | 33 | |
| 475 |
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