Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Vail Resorts, Inc.
How Vail Resorts, Inc. stacks up
MTN · against 277 other Consumer Cyclical companies of similar size
Growth
57/ 100
Below the middle of the pack.
Ranked #143 of 278 · scores higher than 47% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score40 peers with a growth score of 50–59, including MTN · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 57?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.Its metrics sit close to the Consumer Cyclical norm.
- Revenue growth is close to the peer norm. Revenue growth: 2.7% vs peer median 3.7%
- 3-year revenue growth is close to the peer norm. 3-year revenue growth: 5.5% vs peer median 4.3%
- faster growth in earnings per share: stronger than 71% of peers. Earnings per share growth: 24.1% vs peer median 4.2%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = MTN, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | MTN | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 278 reported | 2.7% | 5.5% | 35% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 244 reported | 24.1% | 7.4% | 72% | 33% | |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 276 reported | 5.5% | 5.6% | 48% | 33% |
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around MTN| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.1B USD | 100 | 59 | |
| 2 | 27.1B CNY (≈$3.8B) | 99 | 35 | |
| 2 | 272.3B INR (≈$3.3B) | 99 | 61 | |
| 2 | 9.3B USD | 99 | 43 | |
| 5 | 17.6B SAR (≈$4.8B) | 98 | 68 | |
| 136 | 115.2B THB (≈$3.2B) | 58 | 49 | |
| 136 | 3.0B USD | 58 | 60 | |
| 143 | 415.1B JPY (≈$2.8B) | 57 | 69 | |
| 143 | 2.4B GBP (≈$3.1B) | 57 | 54 | |
| 143 | 5.5B USD | 57 | 36 | |
| 143 | 2.9B USD | 57 | 60 | |
| 143 | 3.7B USD | 57 | 41 | |
| 148 | 4.5B AUD (≈$3.0B) | 56 | 54 | |
| 148 | 5.0B USD | 56 | 58 |
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