contextgo Finance Comparable Valuation
Use this skill when the question is not just "what is this worth?" but "how does it stack up against alternatives?"
Use when
- The user wants to compare multiple companies or candidates.
- The discussion depends on relative valuation, growth quality, margins, or balance-sheet strength.
- A decision requires a consistent side-by-side framework.
Do not use when
- Only one company matters.
- The comparison set is too inconsistent to support a fair benchmark.
- The task is a pure DCF build with no relative lens.
Comparison rules
- Normalize the frame before judging the result.
- Compare like with like on period, scale, business model, and capital intensity.
- Do not let one headline multiple decide the whole conclusion.
- Call out when one candidate is cheaper for a reason.
Workflow
1. Set the comparison frame
Clarify:
- which companies are in scope
- which periods are comparable
- whether the comparison is about valuation, quality, growth, risk, or all of them
2. Choose the right lenses
Potential lenses:
- profitability and margin quality
- growth durability
- leverage and liquidity
- cash conversion
- valuation multiples
- business quality and resilience
3. Normalize and compare
For each important lens:
- use the same basis across candidates
- identify outliers and reasons
- separate cheapness from real quality
4. Conclude with tradeoffs
The answer should explain:
- who looks stronger on quality
- who looks more attractive on valuation
- where the market may be over- or under-pricing risk
- what extra diligence would change the ranking
Output format
Return:
1. Comparison frame
- candidates
- period basis
- key assumptions
2. Side-by-side comparison
- metric or lens
- candidate observations
- notable gaps or caveats
3. Relative conclusion
- strongest candidate and why
- cheapest candidate and why
- where the tradeoff is real rather than cosmetic
Use together with
finance-ratio-benchmarkingfinance-dcf-valuationfinance-investment-screening