Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to TaskUs, Inc.
How TaskUs, Inc. stacks up
TASK · against 609 other Technology companies of similar size
Valuation
100/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #1 of 610 · scores higher than 100% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score70 peers with a valuation score of 90–100, including TASK · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 100?
Weighted metrics compared with all Technology companies.Mainly thanks to its earnings yield, EBITDA yield and free cash flow yield, which are stronger than most Technology peers.
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 96% of peers. EBITDA yield: 19.2% vs peer median 4.2%
- more free cash flow for the price paid: stronger than 96% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 15.7% vs peer median 2.7%
- higher earnings for the price paid: stronger than 98% of peers. Earnings yield: 14.0% vs peer median 2.2%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = TASK, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | TASK | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 594 reported | 13.9% | 1.8% | 98% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 619 reported | 19.1% | 4.0% | 97% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 182 reported | 15.8% | 2.3% | 94% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 600 reported | 36.1% | 39.1% | 45% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around TASK| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 569.9B KRW (≈$410M) | 100 | 88 | |
| 1 | 763M USD | 100 | 65 | |
| 1 | 404M USD | 100 | 57 | |
| 4 | 4.3B HKD (≈$545M) | 98 | 61 | |
| 4 | 32.0B TWD (≈$990M) | 98 | 68 | |
| 4 | 82.1B JPY (≈$558M) | 98 | 63 |
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