Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Waters Corporation
How Waters Corporation stacks up
WAT · against 63 other Healthcare companies of similar size
Valuation
38/ 100
Near the bottom of its peers.
Ranked #58 of 64 · scores higher than 10% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score2 peers with a valuation score of 30–39, including WAT · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 38?
Weighted metrics compared with all Healthcare companies.Its metrics sit close to the Healthcare norm.
- EBITDA yield is close to the peer norm. EBITDA yield: 1.9% vs peer median 4.0%
- Earnings yield is close to the peer norm. Earnings yield: 0.4% vs peer median 1.5%
- Free cash flow yield is close to the peer norm. Free cash flow yield: 0.9% vs peer median 0.0%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = WAT, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | WAT | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 61 reported | 0.9% | 3.0% | 10% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 65 reported | 2.9% | 6.2% | 16% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 46 reported | 0.9% | 3.6% | 11% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 60 reported | 33.6% | 21.8% | 68% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around WAT| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.61T JPY (≈$31.3B) | 93 | 76 | |
| 2 | 78.1B USD | 89 | 60 | |
| 3 | 6.17T JPY (≈$42.0B) | 86 | 70 | |
| 4 | 45.9B USD | 84 | 61 | |
| 5 | 34.3B USD | 83 | 57 | |
| 52 | 49.1B USD | 46 | 69 | |
| 55 | 66.3B USD | 44 | 30 | |
| 56 | 56.7B USD | 42 | 79 | |
| 57 | 2.67T INR (≈$32.1B) | 39 | 68 | |
| 58 | 45.2B USD | 38 | 46 | |
| 59 | 33.3B USD | 8 | 24 | |
| 59 | 23.5B USD | 8 | 27 | |
| 59 | 22.8B USD | 8 | 38 | |
| 59 | 56.0B USD | 8 | 39 |
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