| name | relative-valuation |
| description | Value an equity against its peers — peer-median trading multiples applied to the company's metrics for an implied range, cross-read against its own valuation ratios. |
| tags | ["equity","valuation","comps","relative-valuation","multiples"] |
| requires_tools | ["data_equity_reference","data_equity_ratios","data_equity_comps"] |
Relative valuation
Where a name trades versus comparable companies, and whether that's deserved.
Workflow
- Identify the peer set.
data_equity_reference to classify the company
(sector/industry); choose genuine comparables — similar business, scale, and
growth/margin profile, not just same-sector names.
- The company's own multiples.
data_equity_ratios for its P/E,
EV/EBITDA, EV/revenue, P/S, plus the leverage/returns context that justifies
a premium or discount.
- Comps.
data_equity_comps with the peer tickers — peer-median multiples
applied to the company's metrics give an implied value-per-share range vs
the current price. Report the medians, implied values, and range it returns
directly; they're already computed, so there's no need to re-derive them.
- Read it. Is the name rich or cheap versus peers, and is the gap
warranted by superior growth, margins, or returns? State the implied range
and the call.
Principles
- Peer choice drives the answer — name the comparables and why they fit; a bad
peer set makes a precise-looking range meaningless.
- A premium or discount is only a finding once you tie it to fundamentals
(growth, margins, returns) — otherwise it's just a number.
- Relative value complements, not replaces, an intrinsic (DCF) view — say
which you're giving and pair them when it matters.