Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Monro, Inc.
How Monro, Inc. stacks up
MNRO · against 355 other Consumer Cyclical companies listed in US-listed
Valuation
66/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #82 of 356 · scores higher than 76% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score46 peers with a valuation score of 60–69, including MNRO · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 66?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.Its metrics sit close to the Consumer Cyclical norm.
- less free cash flow for the price paid: weaker than 70% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 2.8% vs peer median 6.1%
- lower earnings for the price paid: weaker than 69% of peers. Earnings yield: 2.2% vs peer median 4.4%
- EBITDA yield is close to the peer norm. EBITDA yield: 17.4% vs peer median 8.8%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = MNRO, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | MNRO | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 352 reported | 1.9% | 4.3% | 29% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 359 reported | 9.7% | 8.4% | 62% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 325 reported | 2.8% | 5.3% | 27% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 352 reported | 160.2% | 35.8% | 95% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around MNRO| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6.2B USD | 99 | 69 | |
| 2 | 7.7B USD | 97 | 68 | |
| 2 | 6.2B USD | 97 | 60 | |
| 4 | 395M USD | 96 | 59 | |
| 4 | 114.1B USD | 96 | 91 | |
| 77 | 13.8B USD | 67 | 66 | |
| 77 | 892M USD | 67 | 53 | |
| 82 | 544M USD | 66 | 50 | |
| 82 | 293M USD | 66 | 89 | |
| 82 | 364M USD | 66 | 44 | |
| 82 | 168M USD | 66 | 41 | |
| 82 | 499M USD | 66 | 72 | |
| 87 | 5.9B USD | 65 | 49 | |
| 87 | 2.6B USD | 65 | 54 |
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