Public company analysis
Comparable company analysis and peer benchmarking
Public comps software that starts where the argument starts: the peer set. NeuraCap builds a comparable universe from business model and financial profile, puts every company on the same basis, then benchmarks growth, margins, returns, cash conversion, trading multiples and sector KPIs against it. The comps table is the evidence, not the conclusion.
- Trading comparables
- KPI benchmarking
- Medians and percentiles
- Consensus estimates
The story
The peer set decides the answer, so it has to survive scrutiny.
Comparable company analysis
A peer group built to be challenged
- The problem
- Building comps by hand takes days and the result is fragile. Change three names in the set and the median moves enough to change the recommendation, which is exactly what the other side of the table will test.
- Why it matters
- Every trading multiple, every percentile and half the valuation range depend on that list. If the peer group cannot be justified, none of the analysis downstream of it can be either.
- In NeuraCap
- NeuraCap screens on business model and financial profile, normalises reported figures to a common basis, calculates the full ratio set for each company, and shows the peer table with the figures behind the median visible.
- What you get
- A comps table with growth, margins, returns, cash conversion and trading multiples for the whole set, plus the company's percentile rank on each measure and on the KPIs specific to its sector.
- The decision it enables
- Whether the company is priced for what it is doing, where the operating gap against peers actually sits, and which part of the story a buyer would pay for.
- Revenue growth
- EBITDA margin
- Return on capital
- EV/EBITDA
An illustration of the layout: one rail per measure, a tick at the peer median and a marker for the company. It carries no figures and describes no real company.
How the set is built
Four rules behind the comparable universe.
Business model, not index label
Peers are selected on how the company actually makes money — what it sells, to whom, on what contract shape — rather than on the sector code it happens to be filed under.
Comparable financial profile
Scale, growth rate and margin structure are part of the screen. A company four times the size with half the growth is a reference point, not a comparable.
Same basis, every line
Reported figures are put on a common basis before anything is compared, so a difference in the table is a difference in the business rather than in the accounting presentation.
The set is visible
The comps table shows which companies are in the set and the figures behind the median, so the peer group can be challenged on its merits rather than taken on trust.
Public-company fundamentals come from SEC EDGAR filings where applicable, with consensus estimates for revenue, EBITDA and EPS and market price data alongside them. Multiples, medians and percentiles are calculated from those inputs, not sourced, and are labelled that way. The coverage and data page lists what is included.
What gets benchmarked
Six families of measure, and what each one tells you.
| Family | Measures | What it reads |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | Revenue growth, multi-period trend, consensus growth for the year ahead. | Whether the company is taking share or riding the sector. |
| Profitability | Gross margin, EBITDA margin, operating margin and their direction over time. | Whether growth is being bought or earned. |
| Returns and capital | Return on capital, capital intensity, leverage and interest cover. | How much balance sheet the model consumes to produce its growth. |
| Cash conversion | Operating cash conversion, working capital movement, free cash flow. | Whether reported profit turns into cash at the rate peers manage. |
| Trading multiples | EV/Revenue, EV/EBITDA, EV/EBIT and P/E, trailing and on consensus estimates. | Where the market places this company relative to its peer group. |
| Sector KPIs | The operating measures that decide value in that specific industry. | The part of the story that generic financial ratios never reach. |
Why medians
Percentiles, not averages.
Outliers are gated, not smoothed
Plausibility gates exclude implausible multiples so they are never plotted. A negative denominator does not quietly become a small positive one.
Two sources per figure
Figures are confirmed against two independent sources, with a 97.5% confirmation rate. Unreconciled items are flagged in the analysis rather than averaged away.
Calibrated language
The written read is phrased as a reading of the evidence, not as asserted causation. The methodology page sets out the rule.
Where it goes next
Comps are an input, not an answer.
Into the football field
Trading multiples become one bar of the valuation analysis.
Against the deal record
Trading multiples are read next to what acquirers paid in M&A intelligence.
As private-company context
The same peer evidence frames private company evaluation.
Proof
See it in the published research.
If you want to see the benchmarking applied to one business rather than a group, the company report is the format, and coverage teams in investment banking use it to keep a whole watchlist current.
Get your custom-built strategic insights report today.
Public or private, any sector. Tell us the company and what you need to understand.