Shortlist

2026-08-24 10:37 UTC yfinance 2846 of 3469 usable 12 candidates 2846 searchable

Each card shows what you stand to gain and what you stand to lose, computed the same way. Up is the sector median multiple; down is the cheapest quintile, or a 25% fall in EBIT, whichever is worse. The ratio between them is the shape of the arithmetic — it is not odds, and nothing here estimates a probability. Falls are measured against the one-year high, not the all-time high — a company far below a peak set years ago has not fallen, it never recovered. P/E is from the last full fiscal year, so it will differ from the trailing-twelve-month figure quoted elsewhere. The band rates the evidence, not the investment. "Strong case" means most of what can be measured checks out — it does not mean buy, and nothing here knows your portfolio, your horizon or why the market is discounting the company. Red flags outweigh a high count. Read the filings before you act on any row.

No purchase price, no date, no share count — this is an assessment of the company right now, not of your position. Your list is stored on this device only.

Order

Sorted by gap size. The gap is the distance to the sector median multiple, not expected return — and the widest gaps are usually the ones the market has the best reason for. This order puts the most heavily discounted names first, which is also where value traps live. The evidence order exists because of that.

BCRX NASDAQ
BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Healthcare
Price
9.55 USD
P/E fy
9.2
EV/EBIT
7.5
EBIT chg
2894.8%
Volatility
82.1%
Below 1y high
14.0% 1mo
+226% / -27% over 5:1

Up: at the Healthcare median multiple. Down: EBIT falling 25% at today's multiple. Both are arithmetic on today's earnings — neither is a probability.

What you'd be betting onThe case rests on earnings holding and the multiple normalising. The question the numbers cannot answer is why the market disagrees — that is in the filings and the news.
−15% below the 52-week high Not measurable

Not enough quarterly data to say whether earnings held up while the price fell.

Strong case 11/11

Most of what can be measured checks out

Growing, not yet priced for itCheap and healthy
The 11 criteria

Valuation

  • Cheaper than sector peers
  • EV/EBIT under 15
  • Free cash flow yield over 5%

Quality

  • ROIC over 10%
  • Operating margin over 10%
  • Gross profit over 20% of assets
  • Piotroski F-Score 7 or better

Balance sheet

  • Net debt under 2.5x EBITDA
  • Altman Z above 2.6
  • Free cash flow positive

Direction

  • Revenue growing over three years
  • Analyst revisions not negative
Why it's cheap

EV/EBIT of 7.5 against a Healthcare median of 22.7 — 67% below peers. Free cash flow yield 13.2%. Trading 71% below its all-time high set 2000-08-25.

Size of the gap

At the Healthcare median EV/EBIT of 22.7 instead of its current 7.5, and with earnings unchanged, the equity would be worth about 216% more. That is the size of the gap, not a forecast that it closes.

Business still intact
  • ROIC 760% — still earning above a plausible cost of capital
  • free cash flow positive
  • Piotroski F-Score 7/9 — accounts improving year on year
  • revenue compounding at 48% over three years
  • net debt 0.5x EBITDA — balance sheet not forcing anything
What this can't see
  • Why the market is discounting this — needs the filings and the news
  • Whether earnings are about to fall and justify the current multiple
  • Data warnings on this row — see caveats below
What the sell side says

Consensus strong buy from 11 analysts, mean target 20.82 USD, 118% above the current price. No revision activity in the last quarter.

Targets spread 96% of the mean — analysts disagree sharply, and consensus loses its information content when they do.

Implied upside of 118% is unusually high. The evidence runs the other way here: stocks with the most optimistic targets tend to underperform, because the optimism bias is real and priced-in slowly. Read this as a caution, not an opportunity.

Price target levels are shown as context only and never feed the score. Targets are reached roughly half the time and the most optimistic ones tend to underperform. Revision direction is the part that carries information.

Data caveats
  • latest statements are 236 days old
LOPE NASDAQ
Grand Canyon Education, Inc.
Consumer Defensive
Price
147.46 USD
P/E fy
17.8
EV/EBIT
12.0
EBIT chg
9.4%
Volatility
34.1%
Below 1y high
33.1% 10mo
+34% / -33% 1.0:1

Up: at the Consumer Defensive median multiple. Down: re-rating to the sector's cheapest quintile (7.8x). Both are arithmetic on today's earnings — neither is a probability.

What you'd be betting onThe case rests on earnings holding and the multiple normalising. The question the numbers cannot answer is why the market disagrees — that is in the filings and the news.
−34% below the 52-week high Not measurable

Not enough quarterly data to say whether earnings held up while the price fell.

Strong case 10/11

Most of what can be measured checks out

Punished, not brokenCheap and healthy
The 11 criteria

Valuation

  • Cheaper than sector peers
  • EV/EBIT under 15
  • Free cash flow yield over 5%

Quality

  • ROIC over 10%
  • Operating margin over 10%
  • Gross profit over 20% of assets
  • Piotroski F-Score 7 or better

Balance sheet

  • Net debt under 2.5x EBITDA
  • Altman Z above 2.6
  • Free cash flow positive

Direction

  • Revenue growing over three years
  • Analyst revisions not negative
Why it's cheap

EV/EBIT of 12.0 against a Consumer Defensive median of 15.9 — 24% below peers. Free cash flow yield 6.5%. Trading 33% below its all-time high set 2025-10-23.

Size of the gap

At the Consumer Defensive median EV/EBIT of 15.9 instead of its current 12.0, and with earnings unchanged, the equity would be worth about 31% more. That is the size of the gap, not a forecast that it closes.

Business still intact
  • ROIC 42% — still earning above a plausible cost of capital
  • free cash flow positive
  • revenue compounding at 7% over three years
  • net debt -0.6x EBITDA — balance sheet not forcing anything
  • Altman Z 15.7 — outside the distress zone
What this can't see
  • Why the market is discounting this — needs the filings and the news
  • Whether earnings are about to fall and justify the current multiple
  • Only 3 analyst estimate(s) — thin coverage
  • Data warnings on this row — see caveats below
What the sell side says

mean target 195.00 USD, 32% above the current price. No revision activity in the last quarter.

Price target levels are shown as context only and never feed the score. Targets are reached roughly half the time and the most optimistic ones tend to underperform. Revision direction is the part that carries information.

Data caveats
  • latest statements are 236 days old
NICE NASDAQ
NICE Ltd.
Technology
Price
100.24 USD
P/E fy
9.6
EV/EBIT
7.9
EBIT chg
16.4%
Volatility
44.2%
Below 1y high
34.7% 11mo
+274% / -24% over 5:1

Up: at the Technology median multiple. Down: EBIT falling 25% at today's multiple. Both are arithmetic on today's earnings — neither is a probability.

What you'd be betting onThe case rests on earnings holding and the multiple normalising. The question the numbers cannot answer is why the market disagrees — that is in the filings and the news.
−35% below the 52-week high Not measurable

Not enough quarterly data to say whether earnings held up while the price fell.

Strong case 11/12

Most of what can be measured checks out

Punished, not brokenCheap and healthy
The 12 criteria

Valuation

  • Cheaper than sector peers
  • EV/EBIT under 15
  • Free cash flow yield over 5%

Quality

  • ROIC over 10%
  • Operating margin over 10%
  • Gross profit over 20% of assets
  • Piotroski F-Score 7 or better

Balance sheet

  • Net debt under 2.5x EBITDA
  • Altman Z above 2.6
  • Free cash flow positive

Direction

  • Revenue growing over three years
  • Analyst revisions not negative
Why it's cheap

EV/EBIT of 7.9 against a Technology median of 28.9 — 73% below peers. Free cash flow yield 11.3%. Trading 68% below its all-time high set 2021-11-15.

Size of the gap

At the Technology median EV/EBIT of 28.9 instead of its current 7.9, and with earnings unchanged, the equity would be worth about 253% more. That is the size of the gap, not a forecast that it closes.

Business still intact
  • ROIC 17% — still earning above a plausible cost of capital
  • free cash flow positive
  • revenue compounding at 11% over three years
  • net debt -0.4x EBITDA — balance sheet not forcing anything
  • Altman Z 4.9 — outside the distress zone
What this can't see
  • Why the market is discounting this — needs the filings and the news
  • Whether earnings are about to fall and justify the current multiple
  • Data warnings on this row — see caveats below
What the sell side says

Consensus buy from 13 analysts, mean target 125.85 USD, 26% above the current price. Revisions over the last quarter are balanced.

Targets spread 56% of the mean — analysts disagree sharply, and consensus loses its information content when they do.

Price target levels are shown as context only and never feed the score. Targets are reached roughly half the time and the most optimistic ones tend to underperform. Revision direction is the part that carries information.

Data caveats
  • latest statements are 236 days old
ERIC NASDAQ
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)
Technology
Price
10.22 SEK
P/E fy
1.2
EV/EBIT
0.4
EBIT chg
567.8%
Volatility
44.4%
Below 1y high
25.6% 2mo

No two-sided case — see the bet below.

What you'd be betting onImplied upside of 3712% is too large to trust. At this size the likeliest explanations are a data error or earnings that are about to fall, not an opportunity the market missed. Verify EBIT and market cap against the filings before reading anything else here.
−26% below the 52-week high Not measurable

Not enough quarterly data to say whether earnings held up while the price fell.

Strong case 9/11

Most of what can be measured checks out

Cheap and healthy
Against it — 1 flag
Revenue has declined every year for three years.

Read off the statements over three years, not from any view about the company's prospects. What the numbers cannot tell you is whether management already has an answer.

The 11 criteria

Valuation

  • Cheaper than sector peers
  • EV/EBIT under 15
  • Free cash flow yield over 5%

Quality

  • ROIC over 10%
  • Operating margin over 10%
  • Gross profit over 20% of assets
  • Piotroski F-Score 7 or better

Balance sheet

  • Net debt under 2.5x EBITDA
  • Altman Z above 2.6
  • Free cash flow positive

Direction

  • Revenue growing over three years
  • Analyst revisions not negative
Why it's cheap

EV/EBIT of 0.4 against a Technology median of 28.9 — 99% below peers. Free cash flow yield 179.8%. Trading 86% below its all-time high set 2000-03-03.

Size of the gap

At the Technology median EV/EBITDA of 19.2 instead of its current 0.3, and with earnings unchanged, the equity would be worth about n/a more. That is the size of the gap, not a forecast that it closes.

Business still intact
  • ROIC 33% — still earning above a plausible cost of capital
  • free cash flow positive
  • Piotroski F-Score 8/9 — accounts improving year on year
  • net debt -0.3x EBITDA — balance sheet not forcing anything
  • operating margin 17%
What this can't see
  • Why the market is discounting this — needs the filings and the news
  • Whether earnings are about to fall and justify the current multiple
  • Data warnings on this row — see caveats below
What the sell side says

mean target 9.67 SEK, 5% below the current price. No revision activity in the last quarter.

Targets spread 35% of the mean — analysts disagree sharply, and consensus loses its information content when they do.

Trading 5% above the consensus target — the sell side thinks it is expensive.

Price target levels are shown as context only and never feed the score. Targets are reached roughly half the time and the most optimistic ones tend to underperform. Revision direction is the part that carries information.

Data caveats
  • latest statements are 236 days old
  • EV/EBIT below 1 — almost always a data error, not a bargain
CARG NASDAQ
CarGurus, Inc.
Consumer Cyclical
Price
36.85 USD
P/E fy
21.1
EV/EBIT
13.4
EBIT chg
45.0%
Volatility
50.5%
Below 1y high
5.6% 8mo
+41% / -25% 1.6:1

Up: at the Consumer Cyclical median multiple. Down: EBIT falling 25% at today's multiple. Both are arithmetic on today's earnings — neither is a probability.

What you'd be betting onThe case rests on earnings holding and the multiple normalising. The question the numbers cannot answer is why the market disagrees — that is in the filings and the news.
−11% below the 52-week high Not measurable

Not enough quarterly data to say whether earnings held up while the price fell.

Strong case 10/11

Most of what can be measured checks out

Growing, not yet priced for it
Against it — 1 flag
Debt has risen relative to assets every year for three years.

Read off the statements over three years, not from any view about the company's prospects. What the numbers cannot tell you is whether management already has an answer.

The 11 criteria

Valuation

  • Cheaper than sector peers
  • EV/EBIT under 15
  • Free cash flow yield over 5%

Quality

  • ROIC over 10%
  • Operating margin over 10%
  • Gross profit over 20% of assets
  • Piotroski F-Score 7 or better

Balance sheet

  • Net debt under 2.5x EBITDA
  • Altman Z above 2.6
  • Free cash flow positive

Direction

  • Revenue growing over three years
  • Analyst revisions not negative
Why it's cheap

EV/EBIT of 13.4 against a Consumer Cyclical median of 18.2 — 26% below peers. Free cash flow yield 8.1%. Trading 34% below its all-time high set 2018-09-27.

Size of the gap

At the Consumer Cyclical median EV/EBIT of 18.2 instead of its current 13.4, and with earnings unchanged, the equity would be worth about 36% more. That is the size of the gap, not a forecast that it closes.

Business still intact
  • ROIC 51% — still earning above a plausible cost of capital
  • free cash flow positive
  • Piotroski F-Score 7/9 — accounts improving year on year
  • net debt 0.0x EBITDA — balance sheet not forcing anything
  • Altman Z 10.5 — outside the distress zone
What this can't see
  • Why the market is discounting this — needs the filings and the news
  • Whether earnings are about to fall and justify the current multiple
  • Data warnings on this row — see caveats below
What the sell side says

Consensus buy from 12 analysts, mean target 41.50 USD, 13% above the current price. No revision activity in the last quarter.

Price target levels are shown as context only and never feed the score. Targets are reached roughly half the time and the most optimistic ones tend to underperform. Revision direction is the part that carries information.

Data caveats
  • latest statements are 236 days old
PRDO NASDAQ
Perdoceo Education Corporation
Consumer Defensive
Price
33.02 USD
P/E fy
12.9
EV/EBIT
7.0
EBIT chg
10.5%
Volatility
53.5%
Below 1y high
12.6% 4mo
+102% / -19% over 5:1

Up: at the Consumer Defensive median multiple. Down: EBIT falling 25% at today's multiple. Both are arithmetic on today's earnings — neither is a probability.

What you'd be betting onThe case rests on earnings holding and the multiple normalising. The question the numbers cannot answer is why the market disagrees — that is in the filings and the news.
−14% below the 52-week high Not measurable

Not enough quarterly data to say whether earnings held up while the price fell.

Strong case 11/11

Most of what can be measured checks out

Cheap and healthy
The 11 criteria

Valuation

  • Cheaper than sector peers
  • EV/EBIT under 15
  • Free cash flow yield over 5%

Quality

  • ROIC over 10%
  • Operating margin over 10%
  • Gross profit over 20% of assets
  • Piotroski F-Score 7 or better

Balance sheet

  • Net debt under 2.5x EBITDA
  • Altman Z above 2.6
  • Free cash flow positive

Direction

  • Revenue growing over three years
  • Analyst revisions not negative
Why it's cheap

EV/EBIT of 7.0 against a Consumer Defensive median of 15.9 — 56% below peers. Free cash flow yield 13.9%. Trading 50% below its all-time high set 2004-04-21.

Size of the gap

At the Consumer Defensive median EV/EBIT of 15.9 instead of its current 7.0, and with earnings unchanged, the equity would be worth about 97% more. That is the size of the gap, not a forecast that it closes.

Business still intact
  • ROIC 35% — still earning above a plausible cost of capital
  • free cash flow positive
  • Piotroski F-Score 7/9 — accounts improving year on year
  • revenue compounding at 7% over three years
  • net debt -1.9x EBITDA — balance sheet not forcing anything
What this can't see
  • Why the market is discounting this — needs the filings and the news
  • Whether earnings are about to fall and justify the current multiple
  • Only 1 analyst estimate(s) — thin coverage
  • Data warnings on this row — see caveats below
What the sell side says

mean target 44.00 USD, 33% above the current price. No revision activity in the last quarter.

Only 1 analyst estimate(s) — too few for a consensus to mean much.

Price target levels are shown as context only and never feed the score. Targets are reached roughly half the time and the most optimistic ones tend to underperform. Revision direction is the part that carries information.

Data caveats
  • latest statements are 236 days old
ETOR NASDAQ
eToro Group Ltd.
Financial Services
Price
30.31 USD
P/E fy
11.2
EV/EBIT
4.0
EBIT chg
3.5%
Volatility
60.6%
Below 1y high
35.4% 11mo
+99% / -12% over 5:1

Up: at the Financial Services median multiple. Down: EBIT falling 25% at today's multiple. Both are arithmetic on today's earnings — neither is a probability.

What you'd be betting onThe case rests on earnings holding and the multiple normalising. The question the numbers cannot answer is why the market disagrees — that is in the filings and the news.
−36% below the 52-week high Not measurable

Not enough quarterly data to say whether earnings held up while the price fell.

Strong case 9/11

Most of what can be measured checks out

Growing, not yet priced for it
The 11 criteria

Valuation

  • Cheaper than sector peers
  • EV/EBIT under 15
  • Free cash flow yield over 5%

Quality

  • ROIC over 10%
  • Operating margin over 10%
  • Gross profit over 20% of assets
  • Piotroski F-Score 7 or better

Balance sheet

  • Net debt under 2.5x EBITDA
  • Altman Z above 2.6
  • Free cash flow positive

Direction

  • Revenue growing over three years
  • Analyst revisions not negative
Why it's cheap

EV/EBIT of 4.0 against a Financial Services median of 9.1 — 56% below peers. Free cash flow yield 26.3%. Trading 60% below its all-time high set 2025-06-09.

Size of the gap

At the Financial Services median EV/EBIT of 9.1 instead of its current 4.0, and with earnings unchanged, the equity would be worth about 62% more. That is the size of the gap, not a forecast that it closes.

Business still intact
  • ROIC 144% — still earning above a plausible cost of capital
  • free cash flow positive
  • revenue compounding at 30% over three years
  • net debt -4.0x EBITDA — balance sheet not forcing anything
  • Altman Z 12.9 — outside the distress zone
What this can't see
  • Why the market is discounting this — needs the filings and the news
  • Whether earnings are about to fall and justify the current multiple
  • Data warnings on this row — see caveats below
What the sell side says

Consensus buy from 14 analysts, mean target 48.43 USD, 60% above the current price. No revision activity in the last quarter.

Targets spread 118% of the mean — analysts disagree sharply, and consensus loses its information content when they do.

Price target levels are shown as context only and never feed the score. Targets are reached roughly half the time and the most optimistic ones tend to underperform. Revision direction is the part that carries information.

Data caveats
  • only 321 days of price history — drawdown vs high is unreliable
  • latest statements are 236 days old
NTES NASDAQ
NetEase, Inc.
Communication Services
Price
128.17 CNY
P/E fy
2.4
EV/EBIT
-2.1
EBIT chg
21.1%
Volatility
55.8%
Below 1y high
17.9% 11mo

No two-sided case — see the bet below.

What you'd be betting onNot enough peer data to price a downside — treat the upside figure as unbounded on the wrong side.
−20% below the 52-week high Not measurable

Not enough quarterly data to say whether earnings held up while the price fell.

Strong case 9/9

Most of what can be measured checks out

Cheap and healthy
The 9 criteria

Valuation

  • Cheaper than sector peers
  • EV/EBIT under 15
  • Free cash flow yield over 5%

Quality

  • ROIC over 10%
  • Operating margin over 10%
  • Gross profit over 20% of assets
  • Piotroski F-Score 7 or better

Balance sheet

  • Net debt under 2.5x EBITDA
  • Altman Z above 2.6
  • Free cash flow positive

Direction

  • Revenue growing over three years
  • Analyst revisions not negative
Why it's cheap

P/E of 2.4 against a Communication Services median of 15.2 — 84% below peers.

Size of the gap

No usable re-rating gap: the multiple is at or above its sector median, or the inputs were missing.

Business still intact
  • ROIC 692% — still earning above a plausible cost of capital
  • free cash flow positive
  • Piotroski F-Score 7/9 — accounts improving year on year
  • revenue compounding at 5% over three years
  • net debt -4.1x EBITDA — balance sheet not forcing anything
What this can't see
  • Why the market is discounting this — needs the filings and the news
  • Whether earnings are about to fall and justify the current multiple
  • Data warnings on this row — see caveats below
What the sell side says

Consensus strong buy from 32 analysts, mean target 161.32 CNY, 26% above the current price. No revision activity in the last quarter.

Targets spread 42% of the mean — analysts disagree sharply, and consensus loses its information content when they do.

Price target levels are shown as context only and never feed the score. Targets are reached roughly half the time and the most optimistic ones tend to underperform. Revision direction is the part that carries information.

Data caveats
  • latest statements are 236 days old
INTU NASDAQ
Intuit Inc.
Technology
Price
367.00 USD
P/E fy
25.9
EV/EBIT
20.2
EBIT chg
34.0%
Volatility
45.7%
Below 1y high
47.1% 11mo
+53% / -34% 1.6:1

Up: at the Technology median multiple. Down: re-rating to the sector's cheapest quintile (13.5x). Both are arithmetic on today's earnings — neither is a probability.

What you'd be betting onThe case rests on current earnings estimates, and analysts have been cutting them. The bet is that the cuts are finished.
−48% below the 52-week high Not measurable

Not enough quarterly data to say whether earnings held up while the price fell.

Strong case 10/12

Most of what can be measured checks out

Punished, not broken
Against it — 1 flag
Analysts have been cutting more than raising this quarter.

Read off the statements over three years, not from any view about the company's prospects. What the numbers cannot tell you is whether management already has an answer.

The 12 criteria

Valuation

  • Cheaper than sector peers
  • EV/EBIT under 15
  • Free cash flow yield over 5%

Quality

  • ROIC over 10%
  • Operating margin over 10%
  • Gross profit over 20% of assets
  • Piotroski F-Score 7 or better

Balance sheet

  • Net debt under 2.5x EBITDA
  • Altman Z above 2.6
  • Free cash flow positive

Direction

  • Revenue growing over three years
  • Analyst revisions not negative
Why it's cheap

EV/EBIT of 20.2 against a Technology median of 28.9 — 30% below peers. Free cash flow yield 5.9%. Trading 54% below its all-time high set 2025-07-30.

Size of the gap

At the Technology median EV/EBIT of 28.9 instead of its current 20.2, and with earnings unchanged, the equity would be worth about 44% more. That is the size of the gap, not a forecast that it closes.

Business still intact
  • ROIC 19% — still earning above a plausible cost of capital
  • free cash flow positive
  • Piotroski F-Score 9/9 — accounts improving year on year
  • revenue compounding at 14% over three years
  • net debt 0.4x EBITDA — balance sheet not forcing anything
What this can't see
  • Why the market is discounting this — needs the filings and the news
  • Whether earnings are about to fall and justify the current multiple
  • Data warnings on this row — see caveats below
What the sell side says

Consensus buy from 33 analysts, mean target 446.02 USD, 22% above the current price. Revisions over the last quarter have been net negative — the sell side is marking this down.

Targets spread 150% of the mean — analysts disagree sharply, and consensus loses its information content when they do.

Price target levels are shown as context only and never feed the score. Targets are reached roughly half the time and the most optimistic ones tend to underperform. Revision direction is the part that carries information.

Data caveats
  • latest statements are 389 days old
MTRX.TA Tel Aviv
Matrix IT Ltd.
Technology
Price
93.52 ILS
P/E fy
28.2
EV/EBIT
17.7
EBIT chg
13.6%
Volatility
33.7%
Below 1y high
37.8% 7mo
+75% / -26% 2.9:1

Up: at the Technology median multiple. Down: EBIT falling 25% at today's multiple. Both are arithmetic on today's earnings — neither is a probability.

What you'd be betting onThe case rests on earnings holding and the multiple normalising. The question the numbers cannot answer is why the market disagrees — that is in the filings and the news.
−39% below the 52-week high Not measurable

Not enough quarterly data to say whether earnings held up while the price fell.

Strong case 9/11

Most of what can be measured checks out

Punished, not broken
The 11 criteria

Valuation

  • Cheaper than sector peers
  • EV/EBIT under 15
  • Free cash flow yield over 5%

Quality

  • ROIC over 10%
  • Operating margin over 10%
  • Gross profit over 20% of assets
  • Piotroski F-Score 7 or better

Balance sheet

  • Net debt under 2.5x EBITDA
  • Altman Z above 2.6
  • Free cash flow positive

Direction

  • Revenue growing over three years
  • Analyst revisions not negative
Why it's cheap

EV/EBIT of 17.7 against a Technology median of 28.9 — 39% below peers. Free cash flow yield 9.0%. Trading 38% below its all-time high set 2026-01-14.

Size of the gap

At the Technology median EV/EBIT of 28.9 instead of its current 17.7, and with earnings unchanged, the equity would be worth about 65% more. That is the size of the gap, not a forecast that it closes.

Business still intact
  • ROIC 28% — still earning above a plausible cost of capital
  • free cash flow positive
  • Piotroski F-Score 9/9 — accounts improving year on year
  • revenue compounding at 10% over three years
  • net debt 0.3x EBITDA — balance sheet not forcing anything
What this can't see
  • Why the market is discounting this — needs the filings and the news
  • Whether earnings are about to fall and justify the current multiple
  • Only 1 analyst estimate(s) — thin coverage
  • Data warnings on this row — see caveats below
What the sell side says

mean target 120.00 ILS, 28% above the current price. Revisions over the last quarter are balanced.

Only 1 analyst estimate(s) — too few for a consensus to mean much.

Price target levels are shown as context only and never feed the score. Targets are reached roughly half the time and the most optimistic ones tend to underperform. Revision direction is the part that carries information.

Data caveats
  • latest statements are 236 days old
HARL.TA Tel Aviv
Harel Insurance Investments & Financial Services Ltd
Financial Services
Price
176.50 ILS
P/E fy
12.1
EV/EBIT
5.7
EBIT chg
86.9%
Volatility
34.9%
Below 1y high
14.3% 3mo
+96% / -21% 4.5:1

Up: at the Financial Services median multiple. Down: EBIT falling 25% at today's multiple. Both are arithmetic on today's earnings — neither is a probability.

What you'd be betting onThe case rests on earnings holding and the multiple normalising. The question the numbers cannot answer is why the market disagrees — that is in the filings and the news.
−16% below the 52-week high Not measurable

Not enough quarterly data to say whether earnings held up while the price fell.

Strong case 7/8

Most of what can be measured checks out

Cheap and healthy
Against it — 1 flag
Debt has risen relative to assets every year for three years.

Read off the statements over three years, not from any view about the company's prospects. What the numbers cannot tell you is whether management already has an answer.

The 8 criteria

Valuation

  • Cheaper than sector peers
  • EV/EBIT under 15
  • Free cash flow yield over 5%

Quality

  • ROIC over 10%
  • Operating margin over 10%
  • Gross profit over 20% of assets
  • Piotroski F-Score 7 or better

Balance sheet

  • Net debt under 2.5x EBITDA
  • Altman Z above 2.6
  • Free cash flow positive

Direction

  • Revenue growing over three years
  • Analyst revisions not negative
Why it's cheap

EV/EBIT of 5.7 against a Financial Services median of 9.1 — 37% below peers. Free cash flow yield 16.1%.

Size of the gap

At the Financial Services median EV/EBIT of 9.1 instead of its current 5.7, and with earnings unchanged, the equity would be worth about 50% more. That is the size of the gap, not a forecast that it closes.

Business still intact
  • ROIC 54% — still earning above a plausible cost of capital
  • free cash flow positive
  • revenue compounding at 31% over three years
  • operating margin 19%
What this can't see
  • Why the market is discounting this — needs the filings and the news
  • Whether earnings are about to fall and justify the current multiple
  • Only 1 analyst estimate(s) — thin coverage
  • Data warnings on this row — see caveats below
What the sell side says

mean target 150.00 ILS, 15% below the current price. Revisions over the last quarter are balanced.

Only 1 analyst estimate(s) — too few for a consensus to mean much.

Trading 15% above the consensus target — the sell side thinks it is expensive.

Price target levels are shown as context only and never feed the score. Targets are reached roughly half the time and the most optimistic ones tend to underperform. Revision direction is the part that carries information.

Data caveats
  • latest statements are 236 days old
PPC NASDAQ
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
Consumer Defensive
Price
32.25 USD
P/E fy
7.1
EV/EBIT
6.2
EBIT chg
5.7%
Volatility
57.2%
Below 1y high
31.8% 12mo
+220% / -34% over 5:1

Up: at the Consumer Defensive median multiple. Down: EBIT falling 25% at today's multiple. Both are arithmetic on today's earnings — neither is a probability.

What you'd be betting onThe case rests on earnings holding and the multiple normalising. The question the numbers cannot answer is why the market disagrees — that is in the filings and the news.
−30% below the 52-week high Not measurable

Not enough quarterly data to say whether earnings held up while the price fell.

Strong case 10/11

Most of what can be measured checks out

Cheap and healthy
The 11 criteria

Valuation

  • Cheaper than sector peers
  • EV/EBIT under 15
  • Free cash flow yield over 5%

Quality

  • ROIC over 10%
  • Operating margin over 10%
  • Gross profit over 20% of assets
  • Piotroski F-Score 7 or better

Balance sheet

  • Net debt under 2.5x EBITDA
  • Altman Z above 2.6
  • Free cash flow positive

Direction

  • Revenue growing over three years
  • Analyst revisions not negative
Why it's cheap

EV/EBIT of 6.2 against a Consumer Defensive median of 15.9 — 61% below peers. Free cash flow yield 6.4%. Trading 38% below its all-time high set 2025-04-23.

Size of the gap

At the Consumer Defensive median EV/EBIT of 15.9 instead of its current 6.2, and with earnings unchanged, the equity would be worth about 210% more. That is the size of the gap, not a forecast that it closes.

Business still intact
  • ROIC 19% — still earning above a plausible cost of capital
  • free cash flow positive
  • Piotroski F-Score 7/9 — accounts improving year on year
  • net debt 1.3x EBITDA — balance sheet not forcing anything
  • Altman Z 3.5 — outside the distress zone
What this can't see
  • Why the market is discounting this — needs the filings and the news
  • Whether earnings are about to fall and justify the current multiple
  • Data warnings on this row — see caveats below
What the sell side says

Consensus hold from 7 analysts, mean target 33.64 USD, 4% above the current price. No revision activity in the last quarter.

Targets spread 42% of the mean — analysts disagree sharply, and consensus loses its information content when they do.

Price target levels are shown as context only and never feed the score. Targets are reached roughly half the time and the most optimistic ones tend to underperform. Revision direction is the part that carries information.

Data caveats
  • latest statements are 236 days old