Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Tenet Healthcare Corporation
How Tenet Healthcare Corporation stacks up
THC · against 105 other Healthcare companies of similar size
Valuation
95/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #2 of 106 · scores higher than 98% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score8 peers with a valuation score of 90–100, including THC · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 95?
Weighted metrics compared with all Healthcare companies.Mainly thanks to its earnings yield, free cash flow yield and EBITDA yield, which are stronger than most Healthcare peers.
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 88% of peers. EBITDA yield: 16.7% vs peer median 4.0%
- higher earnings for the price paid: stronger than 95% of peers. Earnings yield: 14.8% vs peer median 1.5%
- more free cash flow for the price paid: stronger than 95% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 14.1% vs peer median 0.0%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = THC, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | THC | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 104 reported | 9.7% | 3.2% | 99% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 106 reported | 13.2% | 5.9% | 94% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 65 reported | 14.1% | 3.8% | 95% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 100 reported | 21.7% | 22.6% | 48% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around THC| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 89.5B HKD (≈$11.5B) | 98 | 67 | |
| 2 | 80.2B CNY (≈$11.2B) | 95 | 76 | |
| 2 | 21.5B USD | 95 | 60 | |
| 4 | 11.6B USD | 94 | 58 | |
| 4 | 68.0B BRL (≈$12.2B) | 94 | 67 | |
| 6 | 4.61T JPY (≈$31.3B) | 93 | 76 | |
| 7 | 11.6B USD | 92 | 57 |
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