Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Rimini Street, Inc.
How Rimini Street, Inc. stacks up
RMNI · against 1,666 other Technology companies
Valuation
74/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #426 of 1,667 · scores higher than 74% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score167 peers with a valuation score of 70–79, including RMNI · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 74?
Weighted metrics compared with all Technology companies.Mainly thanks to its free cash flow yield and EBITDA yield, which are stronger than most Technology peers.
- Earnings yield is close to the peer norm. Earnings yield: 1.6% vs peer median 2.2%
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 71% of peers. EBITDA yield: 6.5% vs peer median 4.2%
- more free cash flow for the price paid: stronger than 95% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 14.0% vs peer median 2.7%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = RMNI, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | RMNI | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 1,632 reported | 1.4% | 2.3% | 40% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 1,698 reported | 7.5% | 4.3% | 71% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 725 reported | 14.0% | 2.7% | 95% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 1,634 reported | -3.7% | 33.4% | 2% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around RMNI| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 328.2B KRW (≈$236M) | 100 | 58 | |
| 1 | 252.6B KRW (≈$182M) | 100 | 54 | |
| 1 | 443.2B KRW (≈$319M) | 100 | 64 | |
| 1 | 569.9B KRW (≈$410M) | 100 | 88 | |
| 1 | 111M MYR (≈$24M) | 100 | 72 | |
| 426 | 2.1B EUR (≈$2.4B) | 74 | 57 | |
| 426 |
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