V.S.T Tillers Tractors — Peer Comparison

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

Base peer fair value

₹10,575.59

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
HAPPYFORGE	62.89	8.90	46.01	14.05
LMW	153.20	6.99	118.39	6.31
INOXINDIA	68.55	15.77	54.40	12.16
AZAD	129.56	11.26	75.17	27.94
AEQUS	—	11.38	—	—
RATNAMANI	48.01	4.94	—	—
INGERRAND	56.80	23.62	46.55	11.03
KIRLOSBROS	41.14	6.24	28.68	3.35

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 · 28.57% effective method weight

Company multiple: 32.6000×. Eligible peers (7): HAPPYFORGE 62.8900×; LMW 153.2000×; INOXINDIA 68.5500×; AZAD 129.5600×; RATNAMANI 48.0100×; INGERRAND 56.8000×; KIRLOSBROS 41.1400×.

Scenario	Peer multiple	Implied fair value
Bear (P25)	52.4050×	₹6,807.99
Base (median)	62.8900×	₹8,170.11
Bull (P75)	99.0550×	₹12,868.34

P/B · 71.43% effective method weight

Company multiple: 3.7000×. Eligible peers (8): HAPPYFORGE 8.9000×; LMW 6.9900×; INOXINDIA 15.7700×; AZAD 11.2600×; AEQUS 11.3800×; RATNAMANI 4.9400×; INGERRAND 23.6200×; KIRLOSBROS 6.2400×.

Scenario	Peer multiple	Implied fair value
Bear (P25)	6.8025×	₹7,786.29
Base (median)	10.0800×	₹11,537.79
Bull (P75)	12.4775×	₹14,282.02

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 46.55×.

Final peer scenario values
Bear	Base	Bull
₹7,506.77	₹10,575.59	₹13,878.11

Peer selection

Peers are selected from the same Industrials sector. 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. Industry-level matches were unavailable, so sector-level peers were used instead.

Peer comparison table

Industrials · 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
V.S.T Tillers Tractors VSTTILLERS · you	₹3,592 Cr	32.6×	3.7×	—	11.3%	0.2%	—
Sector median	—	62.9×	10.1×	46.5×	12.2%	12.2%	8.9%
Happy Forgings Limited HAPPYFORGE	₹21,732 Cr	62.9×	8.9×	46.0×	14.2%	19.5%	8.9%
LMW Limited LMW	₹20,224 Cr	153.2×	7.0×	118.4×	4.6%	4.1%	-12.1%
INOX India Limited INOXINDIA	₹19,306 Cr	68.5×	15.8×	54.4×	23.1%	16.2%	18.0%
Azad Engineering Limited AZAD	₹16,846 Cr	129.6×	11.3×	75.2×	8.7%	22.0%	33.8%
Aequs Limited AEQUS	₹16,733 Cr	—	11.4×	—	-7.6%	-9.2%	15.8%
Ratnamani Metals & Tubes Limited RATNAMANI	₹16,468 Cr	48.0×	4.9×	—	10.3%	0.1%	—
Ingersoll Rand (India) Limited INGERRAND	₹15,358 Cr	56.8×	23.6×	46.5×	41.6%	18.4%	6.6%
Kirloskar Brothers Limited KIRLOSBROS	₹15,203 Cr	41.1×	6.2×	28.7×	15.2%	8.2%	6.8%

Peer comparison verdict

V.S.T trades at a discount to sector peers on P/E (32.6× vs median 62.9×). This may signal undervaluation — or reflect lower expected growth or higher perceived risk versus the peer group.

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.