Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to The Boston Beer Company, Inc.
How The Boston Beer Company, Inc. stacks up
SAM · against 798 other Consumer Defensive companies
Valuation
44/ 100
Below the middle of the pack.
Ranked #444 of 799 · scores higher than 44% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score80 peers with a valuation score of 40–49, including SAM · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 44?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Defensive companies.A mix: stronger free cash flow yield, but weaker earnings yield than most Consumer Defensive peers.
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. Earnings yield: -3.1% vs peer median 4.5%
- EBITDA yield is close to the peer norm. EBITDA yield: 10.2% vs peer median 8.7%
- more free cash flow for the price paid: stronger than 65% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 9.2% vs peer median 6.2%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = SAM, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | SAM | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 771 reported | -3.1% | 4.5% | 12% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 812 reported | 10.2% | 8.9% | 58% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 312 reported | 9.3% | 6.3% | 65% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 767 reported | 32.9% | 54.4% | 27% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around SAM| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 399.1B KRW (≈$287M) | 100 | 72 | |
| 1 | 242.6B KRW (≈$175M) | 100 | 70 | |
| 1 | 3.6B MYR (≈$796M) | 100 | 82 | |
| 1 | 101M SGD (≈$77M) | 100 | 89 | |
| 5 | 456M HKD (≈$58M) | 98 | 70 | |
| 444 | 808M AUD (≈$533M) | 44 | 62 | |
| 444 |
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