Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to M-tron Industries, Inc.
How M-tron Industries, Inc. stacks up
MPTI · against 397 other Technology companies of similar size
Valuation
61/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #171 of 398 · scores higher than 57% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score26 peers with a valuation score of 60–69, including MPTI · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 61?
Weighted metrics compared with all Technology companies.Mainly thanks to its earnings yield and EBITDA yield, which are stronger than most Technology peers.
- Free cash flow yield is close to the peer norm. Free cash flow yield: 3.3% vs peer median 2.7%
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 64% of peers. EBITDA yield: 6.4% vs peer median 4.2%
- higher earnings for the price paid: stronger than 67% of peers. Earnings yield: 3.4% vs peer median 2.2%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = MPTI, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | MPTI | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 381 reported | 3.9% | 1.7% | 65% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 413 reported | 6.4% | 4.3% | 59% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 137 reported | 3.3% | 1.9% | 57% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 387 reported | 41.9% | 46.7% | 41% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around MPTI| 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 | 404M USD | 100 | 57 | |
| 162 | 257M EUR (≈$283M) | 64 | 49 | |
| 168 |
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