Back to Landmark Property Development Company

Landmark Property Development Company — Peer Comparison

How the peer fair value is calculated and which companies were used as benchmarks.

Peer Bear/Bull unavailable: EV/EBITDA has 3 eligible peers; four are required for quartiles. The production Base peer value is retained.

Base peer fair value

₹5.00

Bear uses each eligible multiple’s 25th percentile; Base retains the current production median; Bull uses the 75th percentile. Quartiles interpolate between sorted observations at (n − 1) × percentile. Each peer has equal weight within a method. These are distribution scenarios, not confidence intervals or scenario probabilities.

Selected peers and raw cached multiples
Peer	P/E	P/B	EV/EBITDA	P/S
PVP	60.00	4.35	—	—
ARIHANT	18.13	2.88	9.15	1.96
ELDEHSG	31.04	1.89	20.67	4.75
GEECEE	18.63	0.94	—	44.92
VASCONEQ	25.38	0.75	—	—
YOGI	55.67	9.98	—	—
PROZONER	64.11	1.50	16.05	3.51
SHRADDHA	9.84	9.96	—	—

The current peer engine’s selected industry/sector peers and cached multiples are preserved. Subject multiples use the engine’s existing EOD-price scaling. Peer observations may have different refresh dates; these scenarios do not claim synchronized market data.

P/E · 20.00% effective method weight

Company multiple: 55.6000×. Eligible peers (8): PVP 60.0000×; ARIHANT 18.1300×; ELDEHSG 31.0400×; GEECEE 18.6300×; VASCONEQ 25.3800×; YOGI 55.6700×; PROZONER 64.1100×; SHRADDHA 9.8400×.

Scenario	Peer multiple	Implied fair value
Bear (P25)	18.5050×	₹2.06
Base (median)	28.2100×	₹3.14
Bull (P75)	56.7525×	₹6.31

P/B · 50.00% effective method weight

Company multiple: 2.0000×. Eligible peers (8): PVP 4.3500×; ARIHANT 2.8800×; ELDEHSG 1.8900×; GEECEE 0.9400×; VASCONEQ 0.7500×; YOGI 9.9800×; PROZONER 1.5000×; SHRADDHA 9.9600×.

Scenario	Peer multiple	Implied fair value
Bear (P25)	1.3600×	₹4.20
Base (median)	2.3850×	₹7.37
Bull (P75)	5.7525×	₹17.78

EV/EBITDA · 30.00% effective method weight

Company multiple: 43.5000×. Eligible peers (3): ARIHANT 9.1495×; ELDEHSG 20.6744×; PROZONER 16.0512×.

Scenario	Peer multiple	Implied fair value
Bear (P25)	—×	₹—
Base (median)	16.0512×	₹2.28
Bull (P75)	—×	₹—

Fair value = the production method’s median fair value × scenario multiple ÷ median multiple, equivalent to the current engine’s price × peer multiple ÷ subject multiple. Effective method weights are normalized across methods with a fair value; the final peer result is rounded to two decimals.

Only methods eligible under the current sector/company rules contribute. Subject multiples must be positive. Peer observations must pass the existing method-specific bounds and sector caps. Four eligible peers per contributing method are required for quartiles; the production median's existing minimum is unchanged. A missing method's Bear/Bull is not replaced with another method or a Base estimate.

Final peer scenario values
Bear	Base	Bull
₹—	₹5.00	₹—

Peer selection

Peers are selected from the same Real estate development industry. 8 companies were matched as valid comparables.

Same-industry peers share similar business models, cost structures, and growth prospects — making them the most appropriate benchmarks for valuation multiples.

Peer comparison table

Real estate development · 8 peers · sector medians shown

Better than medianWorse than median

Company	Mkt Cap	P/E	P/B	EV/EBITDA	ROE	Net Margin	Rev CAGR 3y
Landmark Property Development Company LPDC · you	₹83 Cr	55.6×	2.0×	43.5×	3.6%	20.3%	161.7%
Sector median	—	28.2×	2.4×	16.1×	6.6%	3.3%	6.3%
PVP Ventures Limited PVP	₹922 Cr	60.0×	4.3×	—	7.2%	1.1%	—
Arihant Foundations & Housing Limited ARIHANT	₹825 Cr	18.1×	2.9×	9.1×	15.9%	14.0%	87.0%
Eldeco Housing And Industries Limited ELDEHSG	₹783 Cr	31.0×	1.9×	20.7×	6.1%	14.7%	8.5%
GeeCee Ventures Limited GEECEE	₹748 Cr	18.6×	0.9×	—	5.0%	252.7%	-16.9%
Vascon Engineers Limited VASCONEQ	₹735 Cr	25.4×	0.8×	—	3.0%	0.0%	—
YOGI LIMITED YOGI	₹724 Cr	55.7×	10.0×	—	17.9%	-0.0%	—
Prozone Realty Limited PROZONER	₹685 Cr	64.1×	1.5×	16.1×	2.3%	5.5%	4.1%
SHRADDHA PRIME PROJECTS LTD SHRADDHA	₹633 Cr	9.8×	10.0×	—	101.2%	0.2%	—

Peer comparison verdict

Landmark trades at a premium to sector peers on P/E (55.6× vs median 28.2×). The market is pricing in higher growth — worth verifying whether recent revenue trends support that expectation.

Why median? Why these weights?

Median over mean: The sector median is used instead of the average because valuation multiples have extreme outliers — one high-growth company at 200× P/E would dramatically skew a mean. The median gives the middle value in the peer set, which better represents typical pricing.

Sector-specific weights: The weight given to each method reflects what matters most in this sector. For banks, P/B dominates because their value is tied to book assets. For IT companies, P/E carries the most weight because earnings quality matters more than asset base. For capital-intensive businesses, EV/EBITDA accounts for varying debt levels across peers and removes financing structure bias.

Limitations of peer comparison

Peer comparison assumes comparable companies are truly comparable — which is never perfectly true. Sector classifications can be imperfect: a conglomerate classified as "IT" may also have significant manufacturing revenue. Small peer counts (below 5) reduce confidence, as a single outlier can skew the sector median. When the entire sector is broadly expensive, peer comparison will show even an expensive stock as "fairly valued" relative to its peers.

The peer fair value shown is an algorithmic estimate based on publicly available financial data. It is not investment advice or a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security. Please consult a SEBI-registered investment adviser before making any investment decision.