Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Puma Biotechnology, Inc.
How Puma Biotechnology, Inc. stacks up
PBYI · against 588 other Healthcare companies listed in US-listed
Valuation
76/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #60 of 589 · scores higher than 90% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score31 peers with a valuation score of 70–79, including PBYI · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 76?
Weighted metrics compared with all Healthcare companies.Mainly thanks to its free cash flow yield, earnings yield and EBITDA yield, which are stronger than most Healthcare peers.
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 77% of peers. EBITDA yield: 9.4% vs peer median 4.0%
- higher earnings for the price paid: stronger than 78% of peers. Earnings yield: 5.1% vs peer median 1.5%
- more free cash flow for the price paid: stronger than 90% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 7.8% vs peer median 0.0%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = PBYI, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | PBYI | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 577 reported | 5.0% | -4.3% | 89% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 578 reported | 9.1% | -0.8% | 85% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 553 reported | 7.8% | -2.3% | 91% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 587 reported | 26.5% | 25.9% | 51% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around PBYI| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 256M USD | 98 | 80 | |
| 2 | 595M USD | 96 | 97 | |
| 2 | 433M USD | 96 | 81 | |
| 2 | 289M USD | 96 | 57 | |
| 2 | 810M USD | 96 | 69 | |
| 56 | 418M USD | 79 | 74 | |
| 58 | 393M USD |
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