Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Vipshop Holdings Limited
How Vipshop Holdings Limited stacks up
VIPS · against 355 other Consumer Cyclical companies listed in US-listed
Valuation
99/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #1 of 356 · scores higher than 100% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score15 peers with a valuation score of 90–100, including VIPS · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 99?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Cyclical companies.Mainly thanks to its earnings yield and EBITDA yield, which are stronger than most Consumer Cyclical peers.
- Free cash flow yield is not reported, so it is left out of the score.
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 98% of peers. EBITDA yield: 47.5% vs peer median 8.8%
- higher earnings for the price paid: stronger than 99% of peers. Earnings yield: 23.8% vs peer median 4.4%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = VIPS, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | VIPS | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 352 reported | 23.8% | 4.3% | 99% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 359 reported | 47.5% | 8.4% | 99% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 325 reported | Not reported | 5.3% | — | — | 20% |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 352 reported | 98.7% | 35.8% | 84% | Context only |
A metric that is not reported is left out of the score; the other weights are rescaled.
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around VIPS| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6.2B USD | 99 | 69 | |
| 2 | 7.7B USD | 97 | 68 | |
| 2 | 6.2B USD | 97 | 60 | |
| 4 | 395M USD | 96 | 59 | |
| 4 | 114.1B USD | 96 | 91 |
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