Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Vicor Corporation
How Vicor Corporation stacks up
VICR · against 1,666 other Technology companies
Valuation
27/ 100
Below the middle of the pack.
Ranked #1,209 of 1,667 · scores higher than 27% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score167 peers with a valuation score of 20–29, including VICR · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 27?
Weighted metrics compared with all Technology companies.Mainly because of its EBITDA yield and free cash flow yield, which are weaker than most Technology peers.
- less operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: weaker than 73% of peers. EBITDA yield: 1.5% vs peer median 4.2%
- less free cash flow for the price paid: weaker than 69% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 0.6% vs peer median 2.7%
- Earnings yield is close to the peer norm. Earnings yield: 1.7% vs peer median 2.2%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = VICR, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | VICR | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 1,632 reported | 1.7% | 2.3% | 43% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 1,698 reported | 1.5% | 4.3% | 27% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 725 reported | 0.6% | 2.7% | 31% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 1,634 reported | 10.1% | 33.4% | 13% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around VICR| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 328.2B KRW (≈$236M) | 100 | 58 | |
| 1 | 252.6B KRW (≈$182M) | 100 | 54 | |
| 1 | 443.2B KRW (≈$319M) | 100 | 64 | |
| 1 | 569.9B KRW (≈$410M) | 100 | 88 | |
| 1 | 111M MYR (≈$24M) | 100 | 72 | |
| 1,209 | 41.0B TWD (≈$1.3B) | 27 | 48 | |
| 1,209 |
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