Sundaram Brake Linings — Peer Comparison

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

Base peer fair value

₹550.63

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
CARRARO	22.85	5.28	15.23	1.41
MMFL	31.16	3.15	14.10	1.95
JTEKTINDIA	46.99	3.12	16.37	1.16
RML	24.57	11.33	—	—
SUNCLAY	4.97	3.30	—	—
AUTOAXLES	16.39	2.45	10.03	1.21
RAJRATAN	54.63	7.11	—	—
TALBROAUTO	28.96	4.61	—	—

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 · 58.33% effective method weight

Company multiple: 73.5000×. Eligible peers (8): CARRARO 22.8500×; MMFL 31.1600×; JTEKTINDIA 46.9900×; RML 24.5700×; SUNCLAY 4.9700×; AUTOAXLES 16.3900×; RAJRATAN 54.6300×; TALBROAUTO 28.9600×.

Scenario	Peer multiple	Implied fair value
Bear (P25)	21.2350×	₹193.35
Base (median)	26.7650×	₹243.71
Bull (P75)	35.1175×	₹319.76

P/B · 41.67% effective method weight

Company multiple: 2.7000×. Eligible peers (8): CARRARO 5.2800×; MMFL 3.1500×; JTEKTINDIA 3.1200×; RML 11.3300×; SUNCLAY 3.3000×; AUTOAXLES 2.4500×; RAJRATAN 7.1100×; TALBROAUTO 4.6100×.

Scenario	Peer multiple	Implied fair value
Bear (P25)	3.1425×	₹778.93
Base (median)	3.9550×	₹980.33
Bull (P75)	5.7375×	₹1,422.16

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.

EV/EBITDA does not contribute: the subject multiple/fair value is unavailable. Its production peer median is 14.66×.

Final peer scenario values
Bear	Base	Bull
₹437.35	₹550.63	₹779.09

Peer selection

Peers are selected from the same Auto components 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

Auto components · 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
Sundaram Brake Linings SUNDRMBRAK · you	₹263 Cr	73.5×	2.7×	—	3.7%	0.0%	—
Sector median	—	26.8×	4.0×	14.7×	15.4%	1.5%	6.0%
Carraro India Limited CARRARO	₹3,174 Cr	22.9×	5.3×	15.2×	23.1%	5.8%	10.0%
MM Forgings Limited MMFL	₹3,099 Cr	31.2×	3.1×	14.1×	10.1%	6.2%	2.8%
Jtekt India Limited JTEKTINDIA	₹3,090 Cr	47.0×	3.1×	16.4×	6.5%	2.9%	9.3%
Rane (Madras) Limited RML	₹3,068 Cr	24.6×	11.3×	—	46.1%	0.0%	—
Sundaram Clayton Limited SUNCLAY	₹2,745 Cr	5.0×	3.3×	—	66.4%	0.0%	—
Automotive Axles Limited AUTOAXLES	₹2,628 Cr	16.4×	2.5×	10.0×	15.0%	7.5%	-2.1%
Rajratan Global Wire Limited RAJRATAN	₹2,621 Cr	54.6×	7.1×	—	13.0%	0.1%	—
Talbros Automotive Components Limited TALBROAUTO	₹2,594 Cr	29.0×	4.6×	—	15.9%	0.1%	—

Peer comparison verdict

Sundaram trades at a premium to sector peers on P/E (73.5× vs median 26.8×). 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.