MODEL VERDICT
Information Services Group, Inc. (III)
Relative Valuation•Peer multiples, Monte Carlo simulation & quality-adjusted fair value
Popular:
Composite score derived from valuation, quality, and risk factors
Quantitative model thresholds · For educational and research purposes only
| Methodology | Fair Value | vs Current | Weight | Quality | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forward P/E 49 analyst estimates | $2.67 | -48.9% | 20% | A- | Analyst Est. |
| EV/EBITDA 52 industry peers | $3.64 | -30.3% | 20% | A- | Peer Data |
| Industry Median P/E 40 industry peers | $1.22 | -76.6% | 15% | A | Peer Data |
| Price / Free Cash Flow 46 industry peers | $5.11 | -2.1% | 15% | B+ | Peer Data |
| EV/EBIT 46 industry peers | $0.81 | -84.5% | 8% | B+ | Peer Data |
| EV/FCF 46 industry peers | $4.55 | -12.8% | 7% | B | Model Driven |
| EV To Revenue 59 industry peers | $8.08 | +54.8% | 4% | B | Data |
| Price / Sales 59 industry peers | $8.20 | +57.1% | 3% | B | Model Driven |
| Earnings Yield 41 industry peers | $1.27 | -75.7% | 2% | B | Data |
| FCF Yield 46 industry peers | $5.11 | -2.1% | 1% | B | Data |
| Weighted Output Blended model output | $3.14 | -39.8% | 100% | 80 | SIGNIFICANTLY OVERVALUED |
| EPS Growth ↓ | P/E Multiple → | 73× | 80× | 87× (Current) | 94× | 101× |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bear Case (2%) | $4 | $5 | $5 | $6 | $6 |
| Conservative (5%) | $5 | $5 | $5 | $6 | $6 |
| Base Case (-3.1%) | $4 | $5 | $5 | $5 | $6 |
| Bull Case (-4%) | $4 | $5 | $5 | $5 | $6 |
Cross-sectional regression predicting expected multiples based on growth, margins, ROIC, and beta.
| Multiple | Avg | Median | Min | Max | Std |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P/E Ratio | 36.88 | 36.04 | 11.79 | 55.67 | 15.49 |
| EV/EBIT | 17.48 | 18.89 | 9.63 | 21.73 | 4.23 |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.00 | 13.41 | 8.24 | 17.95 | 3.18 |
| P/FCF | 14.25 | 9.95 | 3.83 | 30.03 | 10.11 |
| P/FFO | 15.88 | 18.31 | 9.24 | 19.15 | 4.02 |
| P/AFFO | 20.46 | 21.09 | 10.70 | 28.35 | 6.12 |
| P/B Ratio | 2.26 | 2.31 | 1.34 | 4.01 | 0.88 |
| Div Yield | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.02 |
| P/S Ratio | 0.79 | 0.71 | 0.45 | 1.42 | 0.30 |
Based on our peer multiples analysis with 26 valuation metrics, the model estimates III's fair value at $3.14 vs the current price of $5.22, implying -39.8% downside potential. Model verdict: Significantly Overvalued. Confidence: 80/100. This is a quantitative estimate, not a recommendation.
The blended fair value of $3.14 is calculated using four lenses: industry median multiples (40%), historical multiples (30%), forward estimates (20%), and quality-adjusted multiples (10%). Monte Carlo simulation (10,000 iterations) gives a range of $2.85 (P10) to $4.05 (P90), with a median of $3.44.
III's current P/E of 87.0x compares to the industry median of 20.3x (40 peers in the group). This represents a +327.6% premium to the industry. The historical average P/E is 36.9x over 7 years. Signal: High Premium.
2 analysts cover III with a consensus rating of Buy. The consensus price target is $7.00 (range: $7.00 — $7.00), implying +34.1% upside from the current price. Grade breakdown: Strong Buy (0), Buy (1), Hold (1), Sell (0), Strong Sell (0).
The model confidence score is 80/100, based on: data completeness (27), peer quality (25), historical depth (20), earnings stability (4), and model agreement (4). Cyclicality penalty: -0 points. The model shows strong agreement across inputs.
The model flags several key risks: (1) Multiple compression: III trades at the 9000th percentile of its historical P/E range. A reversion to median (36.9×) would imply significant downside. (2) Macro/regulatory risks are not captured in this model but remain material.
Peak earnings risk data is not available for III.
No. This dashboard is a quantitative research tool for educational and informational purposes only. It is not investment advice, a solicitation, or a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security. The operator of this platform is not a registered investment advisor (RIA), broker-dealer, or financial planner. All model outputs, fair value estimates, signals, and scenarios are the result of automated quantitative computations and should not be construed as professional financial guidance. You should consult a qualified, licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions. Past model performance is not indicative of future results.