Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to PHINIA Inc.
How PHINIA Inc. stacks up
PHIN · against 1,552 other Consumer Cyclical companies
Valuation
68/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #490 of 1,553 · scores higher than 68% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score155 peers with a valuation score of 60–69, including PHIN · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 68?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.Mainly thanks to its EBITDA yield and free cash flow yield, which are stronger than most Consumer Cyclical peers.
- Earnings yield is close to the peer norm. Earnings yield: 5.3% vs peer median 4.4%
- more free cash flow for the price paid: stronger than 69% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 9.9% vs peer median 6.1%
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 81% of peers. EBITDA yield: 13.1% vs peer median 8.8%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = PHIN, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | PHIN | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 1,527 reported | 5.0% | 4.4% | 55% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 1,593 reported | 15.1% | 8.8% | 81% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 594 reported | 9.9% | 6.1% | 69% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 1,536 reported | 61.0% | 57.2% | 53% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around PHIN| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 198.5B KRW (≈$143M) | 100 | 73 | |
| 1 | 623.0B KRW (≈$449M) | 100 | 65 | |
| 1 | 382.5B KRW (≈$275M) | 100 | 57 | |
| 1 | 412.0B KRW (≈$297M) | 100 | 56 | |
| 1 | 1.49T KRW (≈$1.1B) | 100 | 73 | |
| 490 | 7.4B USD | 68 | 67 | |
| 490 |
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