Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Viking Holdings Ltd
How Viking Holdings Ltd stacks up
VIK · against 70 other Consumer Cyclical companies of similar size
Growth
99/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #4 of 71 · scores higher than 96% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score14 peers with a growth score of 90–100, including VIK · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 99?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.Mainly thanks to its earnings per share growth, 3-year revenue growth and revenue growth, which are stronger than most Consumer Cyclical peers.
- faster revenue growth over the last year: stronger than 90% of peers. Revenue growth: 21.9% vs peer median 3.7%
- faster revenue growth over three years: stronger than 93% of peers. 3-year revenue growth: 27.0% vs peer median 4.3%
- faster growth in earnings per share: stronger than 99% of peers. Earnings per share growth: 613.9% vs peer median 4.2%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = VIK, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | VIK | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 71 reported | 21.9% | 8.6% | 84% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 65 reported | 613.9% | 11.2% | 97% | 33% | |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 71 reported | 27.0% | 9.8% | 87% | 33% |
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around VIK| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 158.6B CNY (≈$22.2B) | 100 | 60 | |
| 1 | 184.4B HKD (≈$23.6B) | 100 | 91 | |
| 1 | 47.0B USD | 100 | 61 | |
| 4 | 38.3B USD | 99 | 57 | |
| 5 | 880.5B TWD (≈$27.3B) | 97 | 75 | |
| 5 | 21.7B USD | 97 | 58 | |
| 5 | 4.05T INR (≈$48.6B) | 97 | 53 | |
| 8 | 26.1B USD | 96 | 81 |
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