Scout Competitors
| SCOUT Stock | SEK 0.13 0.01 8.33% |
Pair Correlation for Scout Gaming and Nitro Games Overview
Good diversification
Across the chosen horizon, SCOUT and NITRO show a correlation of -0.01 and fall into the Good diversification bucket. The overlap area represents the portion of risk that may be diversified away when both instruments are held together and nothing else in the portfolio changes.
Moving against Scout Stock
Mean reversion in Scout Gaming is more reliable over longer time horizons. Short-term deviations can persist and even widen before correcting, making position sizing and risk management critical.
Scout Gaming Competition Correlation Matrix
Correlation analysis between Scout Gaming Group and its competitors helps investors understand whether diversification is real or only superficial inside the same peer group. This matrix is most informative when investors want to know whether adding another peer would improve diversification, increase crowding, or leave total risk largely unchanged.
High positive correlations
| High negative correlations
|
Risk-Adjusted Indicators
There is a big difference between Scout Stock performing well and Scout Gaming Company doing well as a business compared to the competition. There are so many exceptions to the norm that investors cannot definitively determine what's good or bad unless they analyze Scout Gaming's multiple risk-adjusted performance indicators across the competitive landscape. These indicators are quantitative in nature and help investors forecast volatility and risk-adjusted expected returns across various positions.| Mean Deviation | Jensen Alpha | Sortino Ratio | Treynor Ratio | Semi Deviation | Expected Shortfall | Potential Upside | Value @Risk | Maximum Drawdown | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FRAG | 5.24 | 0.43 | 0.08 | -0.48 | 5.67 | 11.30 | 55.16 | |||
| JLT | 2.50 | -0.19 | 0.00 | 0.42 | 0.00 | 6.80 | 21.81 | |||
| MOBA | 15.76 | 4.18 | 0.28 | 0.89 | 10.81 | 25.00 | 439.69 | |||
| ANOT | 3.88 | 0.01 | 0.02 | -0.06 | 4.42 | 9.48 | 29.68 | |||
| FLOWS | 2.68 | 0.18 | 0.06 | 0.22 | 2.87 | 5.52 | 13.41 | |||
| GPX | 2.84 | 0.02 | 0.00 | -0.02 | 0.00 | 7.35 | 19.08 | |||
| CHARGE | 4.70 | 0.15 | 0.04 | -0.40 | 4.75 | 9.63 | 28.86 | |||
| SONE | 4.14 | -0.48 | 0.00 | 0.35 | 0.00 | 13.46 | 28.29 | |||
| SPEONE | 3.84 | 0.25 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 3.92 | 7.14 | 37.19 | |||
| NITRO | 4.15 | 0.12 | 0.04 | 0.69 | 4.17 | 11.63 | 29.21 |
Scout Gaming Competitive Analysis
How does Scout Gaming measure up against Fragbite Group, JLT Mobile, and MOBA Network? The financials tell a nuanced story. Scout Gaming operates at a 110.8 M scale with 31.8 M flowing through the income statement. With a -94.83% return on equity and -260.74% net margin, Scout Gaming faces a more difficult earnings environment than some peers. Fragbite Group keeps more of each revenue dollar with a -35.77% margin versus -260.74% at Scout Gaming. On equity returns, JLT Mobile earns 7.63% compared to -94.83% at Scout Gaming. Scout Gaming is dwarfed by MOBA Network on market cap at 460.5 M versus 110.8 M.| Better Than Average | Worse Than Peers | View Performance Chart |
Peer Performance Charts
How to Analyze Scout Gaming Against Peers
Scout Gaming's peer analysis compares Scout Gaming with related companies to put valuation, quality, and risk metrics in context. This helps determine whether recent performance is company-specific or broadly sector-driven. A practical workflow includes:- Set a relevant peer group: Include direct competitors and close alternatives with comparable business exposure.
- Benchmark core financials: Compare profitability, growth, capital structure, and cash flow quality.
- Check valuation dispersion: Review whether Scout Gaming trades at a premium or discount versus peers and why.
- Evaluate risk profile: Compare volatility, drawdowns, and correlation to avoid false diversification assumptions.
- Document the thesis: Record where Scout Gaming leads or lags and what catalysts could close or widen the gap.