Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Walmart Inc.
How Walmart Inc. stacks up
WMT · against 800 other Consumer Defensive companies
Valuation
25/ 100
Near the bottom of its peers.
Ranked #598 of 801 · scores higher than 25% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score80 peers with a valuation score of 20–29, including WMT · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 25?
Weighted metrics compared with all Consumer Defensive companies.Mainly because of its free cash flow yield, EBITDA yield and earnings yield, which are weaker than most Consumer Defensive peers.
- less free cash flow for the price paid: weaker than 80% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 1.6% vs peer median 6.3%
- less operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: weaker than 75% of peers. EBITDA yield: 5.3% vs peer median 8.9%
- lower earnings for the price paid: weaker than 69% of peers. Earnings yield: 2.6% vs peer median 4.7%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = WMT, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | WMT | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 772 reported | 2.6% | 4.7% | 31% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 813 reported | 4.7% | 9.2% | 25% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 301 reported | 1.6% | 6.4% | 20% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 724 reported | 11.4% | 52.1% | 8% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around WMT| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 393.4B KRW (≈$283M) | 100 | 72 | |
| 1 | 254.3B KRW (≈$183M) | 100 | 70 | |
| 1 | 3.5B MYR (≈$772M) | 100 | 82 | |
| 1 | 117M SGD (≈$89M) | 100 | 89 | |
| 5 | 31.6B HKD (≈$4.0B) | 98 | 76 | |
| 598 | 8.1B THB (≈$226M) | 25 | 21 | |
| 598 |
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