Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to ResMed Inc.
How ResMed Inc. stacks up
RMD · against 1,336 other Healthcare companies
Valuation
68/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #422 of 1,337 · scores higher than 68% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score134 peers with a valuation score of 60–69, including RMD · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 68?
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 64% of peers. EBITDA yield: 6.5% vs peer median 4.0%
- higher earnings for the price paid: stronger than 76% of peers. Earnings yield: 4.6% vs peer median 1.5%
- more free cash flow for the price paid: stronger than 79% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 5.0% vs peer median 0.0%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = RMD, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | RMD | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 1,287 reported | 4.6% | 1.5% | 76% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 1,357 reported | 6.5% | 4.2% | 64% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 711 reported | 5.0% | -1.0% | 79% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 1,306 reported | 20.1% | 37.9% | 29% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around RMD| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 21.3B HKD (≈$2.7B) | 99 | 68 | |
| 1 | 1.1B HKD (≈$146M) | 99 | 72 | |
| 1 | 14.2B HKD (≈$1.8B) | 99 | 64 | |
| 1 | 52.2B HKD (≈$6.7B) | 99 | 56 | |
| 1 | 3.5B HKD (≈$451M) | 99 | 51 | |
| 422 | 4.0B EUR (≈$4.4B) | 68 | 49 |
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