Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Science Applications International Corporation
How Science Applications International Corporation stacks up
SAIC · against 1,666 other Technology companies
Valuation
80/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #326 of 1,667 · scores higher than 80% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score167 peers with a valuation score of 80–89, including SAIC · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 80?
Weighted metrics compared with all Technology companies.Mainly thanks to its free cash flow yield, earnings yield and EBITDA yield, which are stronger than most Technology peers.
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 75% of peers. EBITDA yield: 7.3% vs peer median 4.2%
- higher earnings for the price paid: stronger than 80% of peers. Earnings yield: 6.0% vs peer median 2.2%
- more free cash flow for the price paid: stronger than 90% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 9.7% vs peer median 2.7%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = SAIC, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | SAIC | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 1,632 reported | 5.7% | 2.3% | 80% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 1,698 reported | 8.4% | 4.3% | 75% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 725 reported | 9.7% | 2.7% | 90% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 1,634 reported | 21.8% | 33.4% | 33% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around SAIC| 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 | |
| 326 | 1.9B USD | 80 | 53 | |
| 326 |
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