Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to PLDT Inc.
How PLDT Inc. stacks up
PHI · against 142 other Communication Services companies listed in US-listed
Valuation
82/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #24 of 143 · scores higher than 82% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score14 peers with a valuation score of 80–89, including PHI · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 82?
Weighted metrics compared with all Communication Services companies.Mainly thanks to its earnings yield, free cash flow yield and EBITDA yield, which are stronger than most Communication Services peers.
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 73% of peers. EBITDA yield: 15.2% vs peer median 8.6%
- more free cash flow for the price paid: stronger than 81% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 19.0% vs peer median 7.4%
- higher earnings for the price paid: stronger than 90% of peers. Earnings yield: 11.7% vs peer median 2.9%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = PHI, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | PHI | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 140 reported | 11.7% | 3.0% | 88% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 144 reported | 15.2% | 9.3% | 76% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 131 reported | 19.0% | 7.5% | 84% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 144 reported | 53.6% | 45.9% | 55% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around PHI| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.5B USD | 99 | 79 | |
| 2 | 4.5B USD | 98 | 64 | |
| 3 | 743M USD | 97 | 67 | |
| 3 | 659M USD | 97 | 81 | |
| 5 | 393M USD | 96 | 78 | |
| 20 | 18.0B USD | 84 | 71 | |
| 22 | 693M 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