Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Sabre Corporation
How Sabre Corporation stacks up
SABR · against 1,666 other Technology companies
Valuation
83/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #276 of 1,667 · scores higher than 83% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score167 peers with a valuation score of 80–89, including SABR · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 83?
Weighted metrics compared with all Technology companies.Mainly thanks to its EBITDA yield, which is stronger than most Technology peers.
- lower earnings for the price paid: weaker than 93% of peers. Earnings yield: 106.4% vs peer median 2.2%
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. Free cash flow yield: -2.4% vs peer median 2.7%
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 80% of peers. EBITDA yield: 10.0% vs peer median 4.2%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = SABR, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | SABR | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 1,632 reported | -11.4% | 2.3% | 7% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 1,698 reported | 9.6% | 4.3% | 80% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 725 reported | -2.4% | 2.7% | 22% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 1,634 reported | -158.8% | 33.4% | 0% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around SABR| 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 | |
| 276 | 1.0B USD | 83 | 75 | |
| 276 |
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