relative-valuation

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.