Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
NAMS · against 380 other Healthcare companies of similar size
Ranked #278 of 381 · scores higher than 6% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score104 peers with a valuation score of 0–9, including NAMS · Click a bar to see the companies
Mainly because of its EBITDA yield, earnings yield and free cash flow yield, which are weaker than most Healthcare peers.
| Metric | NAMS | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 370 reported | -10.9% | 1.9% | 14% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 378 reported | -14.4% | 4.3% | 9% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 191 reported | -6.2% | -0.3% | 27% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 370 reported | 27.0% | 32.8% | 40% | Context only |
| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 21.3B HKD (≈$2.7B) | 99 | 68 | |
| 1 | 14.2B HKD (≈$1.8B) | 99 | 64 | |
| 1 | 12.9B HKD (≈$1.7B) | 99 | 83 | |
| 1 | 226.3B JPY (≈$1.5B) | 99 | 77 | |
| 1 | 40.2B MXN (≈$2.2B) | 99 | 71 | |
| 278 | 2.6B USD | 8 | 43 | |
| 278 | 1.9B USD | 8 | 44 | |
| 278 | 1.4B USD | 8 | 39 | |
| 278 | 2.8B USD | 8 | 22 | |
| 278 | 2.3B USD | 8 | 26 | |
| 278 | 1.5B USD | 8 | 32 | |
| 278 | 1.3B USD | 8 | 27 | |
| 278 | 1.7B USD | 8 | 33 | |
| 278 | 1.6B USD | 8 | 38 |
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