Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Tesla, Inc.
How Tesla, Inc. stacks up
TSLA · against 355 other Consumer Cyclical companies listed in US-listed
Valuation
11/ 100
Near the bottom of its peers.
Ranked #320 of 356 · scores higher than 9% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score27 peers with a valuation score of 10–19, including TSLA · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 11?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.Mainly because of its EBITDA yield, earnings yield and free cash flow yield, which are weaker than most Consumer Cyclical peers.
- less operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: weaker than 89% of peers. EBITDA yield: 0.7% vs peer median 8.8%
- lower earnings for the price paid: weaker than 78% of peers. Earnings yield: 0.3% vs peer median 4.4%
- less free cash flow for the price paid: weaker than 78% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 0.4% vs peer median 6.4%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = TSLA, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | TSLA | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 352 reported | 0.3% | 4.6% | 23% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 359 reported | 0.7% | 8.8% | 10% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 326 reported | 0.4% | 5.8% | 18% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 349 reported | 5.8% | 38.4% | 17% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around TSLA| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6.1B USD | 99 | 69 | |
| 2 | 6.0B USD | 98 | 61 | |
| 3 | 8.3B USD | 97 | 68 | |
| 3 | 111.7B USD | 97 | 91 | |
| 5 | 395M USD | 96 | 59 | |
| 320 | 334M USD | 11 | 26 | |
| 320 | 419M USD | 11 | 11 |
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