Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to TriMas Corporation
How TriMas Corporation stacks up
TRS · against 1,552 other Consumer Cyclical companies
Valuation
88/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #180 of 1,553 · scores higher than 88% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score156 peers with a valuation score of 80–89, including TRS · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 88?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.Mainly thanks to its EBITDA yield, which is stronger than most Consumer Cyclical peers.
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. Free cash flow yield: -0.8% vs peer median 6.1%
- Earnings yield is close to the peer norm. Earnings yield: 64.4% vs peer median 4.4%
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 66% of peers. EBITDA yield: 19.6% vs peer median 8.8%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = TRS, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | TRS | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 1,527 reported | 5.3% | 4.4% | 58% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 1,593 reported | 11.5% | 8.8% | 66% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 594 reported | -0.8% | 6.1% | 19% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 1,536 reported | 102.6% | 57.2% | 74% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around TRS| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 198.5B KRW (≈$143M) | 100 | 73 | |
| 1 | 623.0B KRW (≈$449M) | 100 | 65 | |
| 1 | 382.5B KRW (≈$275M) | 100 | 57 | |
| 1 | 412.0B KRW (≈$297M) | 100 | 56 | |
| 1 | 1.49T KRW (≈$1.1B) | 100 | 73 | |
| 180 | 87.6B JPY (≈$596M) | 88 | 62 | |
| 180 |
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