Compare price, profitability, solvency, and SEC-reported financials side by side—before deciding which assumptions deserve a closer look.
Decision snapshot: FRT stock price vs CSGP: inconclusive Relative valuation is incomplete for this pair. Review the available filing metrics before drawing a conclusion.
Quick read
Each company valued on the other's multiple, then compared with the market price.
Implied fair value · at CSGP's multiple
Needs CSGP P/E.
Implied fair value · at FRT's multiple
Needs FRT P/E.
Price unavailable
Metric by metric
Where each company leads, and how wide the gap is.
Growth lag
Reported gross margin
Operating income + D&A
Lower is better
Not comparable
Lower leverage
Statements
Annual statements in reported currencies, with calculations and source evidence.
Values retain reported currencies and share bases. Select a figure to inspect its period, calculation and filing inputs. Differences require compatible units and periods.
Explore enterprise value and market valuation multiples in the valuation sections.
Trendline
Eight period-end years of reported revenue, earnings, and margins. Periods and currencies are shown with the data.
Price framework
USD market cap plus reported borrowing debt, less cash and equivalents. This EV proxy excludes investments, preferred stock and noncontrolling-interest adjustments.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Price framework
The same filing-backed model used on each company's valuation page, with company-specific inputs and calculated scenarios.
FEDERAL REALTY INVESTMENT TRUST · implied price per share
Five annual free-cash-flow observations are required for the filing-backed baseline.
CoStar Group, Inc. · implied price per share
Debt and bridge-cash inputs are required to translate enterprise value into equity value.
Balance sheet health
Inspect reported liquidity and leverage alongside historical financial-health checks.
Financial strength on a 0–9 scale.
Bankruptcy-risk signal from balance sheet and earnings power.
Not enough data to score either balance sheet.
Comparable set
Where the pair sits against the wider comparable set.
Keep comparing
Open adjacent comparisons from the same industry to pressure-test the read across multiple pairs.
KIMCO REALTY CORP
FRT vs KIM
REGENCY CENTERS CORP
FRT vs REG
Brixmor Property Group Inc.
FRT vs BRX
SIMON PROPERTY GROUP INC /DE/
FRT vs SPG
WELLTOWER INC.
FRT vs WELL
Prologis, Inc.
FRT vs PLD
Public Storage
FRT vs PSA
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL
FRT vs EQR
CROWN CASTLE INC.
FRT vs CCI
CENTERSPACE
FRT vs CSR
Cash excludes investments. EBITDA is an operating-income-plus-D&A proxy. Missing borrowing categories remain unavailable; select a value to inspect its inputs.
LLM-powered synthesis
An explanation of the financial evidence. Check its snapshot date against the figures above.
This explanation uses an earlier data snapshot or evidence version. Review its generation date and the current figures, or refresh after signing in.
If you believe FRT can sustain its current profitability while the market normalizes CSGP's extreme earnings multiple, then hold or modestly accumulate FRT because FRT is materially stronger on margins and ROIC, but the relative P/E output is too distorted to justify aggressive upside.
The stated P/E-based implied price for FRT of $6,729.84 versus the current price of $124.09 creates an enormous 5,323.4% upside figure, but that result is driven by an outlier CSGP P/E of 1,438.0x rather than a stable comparative benchmark. On a broader valuation basis, FRT looks expensive on P/S at 8.4x versus CSGP at 3.6x, yet FRT is much cheaper on EV/Revenue at 12.2x versus CSGP at 3.1x because of very different capital structures and profitability profiles.
Supporting Metrics
