§ Tool · Valuation calculator
PEG-adjusted peer calculator
A relative-value calculator: it prices a stock against the median PEG of its peer set, implies a forward P/E, and anchors a forward-EPS fair value. The 'what would peers pay for this growth?' lens, fundamentally different from the DCF kernels and most informative when triangulated against them.
§ What this is warning you about first
PEG is a relative-value cross-check, not an intrinsic-value anchor. Peer quality and growth durability matter as much as the ratio. Base reliability starts at 0.90, never 1.0, and a low-comparability or dispersed peer set drops it further. Read the answer alongside the DCFs, not instead of them.
Peer multiple
Model · peg_adjusted_peer
Forward P/E
Primary input
Low / mid / high
Output range
Integer %
Growth convention
0.90 base
Relative, not intrinsic
§ Start with a preset
Three relative-value starting points. Adjust anything after.
LensSubject PEG vs peer median PEG → implied forward P/E → forward-EPS-anchored fair-value range./en/tools/peg-adjusted-peer-calculator
§ Fair value range · per share
PEG-adjusted peer · Mature compounder
FV low · −15%
$136.27
-39.7%Implied fair price
$160.32
-29.1% vs price
FV high · +15%
$184.36
-18.4%Price $226.00
methodology_version = valuation-calculators.v1model_id = peg_adjusted_peer
§ The relative-value read
Is the market over- or under-paying this stock vs peers?
Subject PEG
2.67
forwardPe 24 ÷ growth 9
↑+41%
Peer median PEG
1.90
6 valid peers
Subject trades richer per point of growth than its peers (2.67 vs 1.90 median) — the market is paying up for this name relative to the set.
§ Implied chain
From peer median PEG to a forward-EPS-anchored price
Peer median PEG
1.90
×
Growth (integer %)
9
=
Implied forward P/E
17.1
subject 24× · cap 80 / 2.5×
×
Forward EPS
$9.40
supplied
=
Implied fair price
$160.32
±15% range
§ Peer set validation
The peer PEG distribution — and how tight it is
Valid peers
6
of 6 supplied
Min
1.62
Median
1.90
the anchor
Max
2.31
Dispersion
1.4×
max ÷ min
tight peer set — median is a representative anchor
§ Reliability factors · base 0.90score 75/100
-0.15Peer policy · secondary rolellm_peer_policy_secondary_role: cross_check
§ Formula trace
Every step, derived
- forwardPe = 24 (forwardPe) · growthPct = 9 (round of 9)
- peerPegs filtered: 6 valid of 6
- peerPegStats = { count 6, min 1.62, max 2.31, median 1.90, dispersion 1.43× }
- stockPeg = forwardPe / growthPct = 24 / 9 = 2.67
- impliedForwardPe = peerMedianPeg × growthPct = 1.90 × 9 = 17.1
- forwardEps = 9.40 (supplied)
- impliedPrice = impliedForwardPe × forwardEps = 17.1 × 9.40 = 160.32
- range = [136.27, 160.32, 184.36] (±15%)
- reliability = clamp(0.9 -0.15, 0, 1) = 0.75
§ Calculator contract
One stable kernel contract — same as the reports
Reference the model by its stable id peg_adjusted_peer, not the display label. The dedicated page, the all-model workbook, and the report pipeline all hit the same endpoint and reconcile to the same fair value.
| Slug | /en/tools/peg-adjusted-peer-calculator |
| Kernel model id | peg_adjusted_peer · role relative |
| Valuation lens | Peer median PEG → implied forward P/E → forward-EPS-anchored fair value (±15%) |
| Primary input | Forward P/E (trailing fallback) + growth as integer % + peer median PEG |
| Output | status (computed / excluded / failed) + fairValue (low / mid / high) + peer_peg_stats + reliability factors |
| Methodology | valuation-calculators.v1 |
§ Defaults
The constants the kernel ships with
| Minimum reliable peer count | 3 (overridable via peer policy, [1, 10]) |
| Max reasonable peer PEG (filter) | 5.0 (values above are discarded as bad data) |
| Max reasonable implied forward P/E | 80.0 (above triggers −0.35) |
| Max subject-PE multiple | 2.5× (implied PE > 2.5× subject → −0.25) |
| Output range | ±15% around mid |
| Base reliability score | 0.90 (not 1.0 — relative is inherently weaker than intrinsic) |
§ Notes
This surface is statelessand runs entirely in your browser — nothing you type is saved or sent anywhere. The same kernel powers the per-stock reports, so the fair value here reconciles exactly with the report's peg_adjusted_peer output for the same inputs. The canonical use is triangulation: run the same stock through the intrinsic DCFs and read the divergence. If the DCFs say $80 and peer PEG says $120, either the DCF growth is conservative or the peer set is over-valued.
All-model workbook →Discounted earnings (intrinsic)Read methodologymethodology_version = valuation-calculators.v1
§ FAQ
Five things worth knowing
Q01Why is growth entered as an integer percent (20), not a decimal (0.20)?+
It is a platform-wide convention, enforced everywhere PEG is computed: PEG = forward P/E ÷ growth as an integer percent. So 20% growth gives PEG = P/E ÷ 20, not P/E ÷ 0.20. Anchoring on the integer form matches the stock-analysis system and removes a whole class of decimal-shifting errors. A stray factor of 100 is the single most common way a PEG calculation goes silently wrong. If the growth you enter rounds to 0 (e.g. 0.4%), the calculator returns FAILED rather than dividing by zero.
Q02Why does base reliability start at 0.90 instead of 1.0?+
Because relative valuation is inherently a cross-check, not an intrinsic-value anchor. PEG tells you what the peer set is willing to pay per point of growth, which is only as good as the peers are comparable and as durable as the growth turns out to be. The DCF kernels build value from first principles and can legitimately claim full confidence in best cases; this one never does. Starting at 0.90 is the model admitting, structurally, that it is the triangulation lens, most useful read alongside the intrinsic models, not in place of them.
Q03What is the LLM comparability override, and when does it fire?+
When the per-stock analysis pipeline has independently scored the peer set quality at 80+/100, the calculator accepts a peer set smaller than the default 3-peer minimum and floors reliability at 0.75, removing the thin/limited-peer penalty it would otherwise apply. This handles niche industries (a specialized REIT subsegment, a one-of-a-kind business model) where only 2 truly comparable peers exist but the analysis confirms those 2 are genuinely comparable. Without the override, every small-peer-set case would be falsely downgraded.
Q04The implied forward P/E looks absurd — is the model misbehaving?+
No, it is surfacing the warning. A peer median PEG of 4.5 against 30% growth implies a 135 forward P/E: mathematically valid, commercially absurd. Two independent sanity checks catch this: an absolute threshold (implied P/E > 80 → −0.35) and a relative one (implied P/E > 2.5× the subject's own P/E → −0.25). Both must be plausible for reliability to hold. When either trips, the factor is surfaced with its numbers so you know exactly why the answer is being discounted.
Q05How is this different from the DCF calculators in the suite?+
The DCFs (discounted earnings, FCFF, multi-stage moat fade) build fair value from first principles. They answer "what is this worth intrinsically?" PEG-adjusted peer calibrates against the market's pricing of similar businesses. It answers "what multiple is the peer set actually willing to pay per point of growth?" The output is most informative when triangulated against the intrinsic models: if the DCFs say $80 and peer PEG says $120, that divergence is the signal. Either the DCF growth assumptions are conservative, or the peer set is over-valued.