New York Times Co. Class A Common Stock (NYT) scored on five pillars from its reported financial statements, and ranked against 80 Communication Services companies.
New York Times Co. Class A Common Stock (NYT) scores 7.9 out of 10 as of , computed from its reported financial statements. That reads as high quality. The reading rests on solvency, and growth is what holds it back.
Data provided by Twelve Data. Scores are computed by Lemma Analysis from reported financials.
We cannot judge New York Times Co. Class A Common Stock yet, because fewer than five years had both a return on capital and a cost of capital we could measure. This is not a “no”.
Quantitative signs of a moat, read from the filed statements. This is not a judgement of where it comes from (brand, network effects, switching costs). How Lemma measures a moat →
As of October 19, 2026, New York Times Co. Class A Common Stock scores 7.9 out of 10 on the Lemma Quality Score, a reading of high quality. Businesses in this band tend to combine good returns with a sound balance sheet, even if one pillar lags the others. Nothing in it comes from the share price or from forecasts: it is New York Times Co. Class A Common Stock’s own reported numbers, scored pillar by pillar.
No other company among the 80 Communication Services companies scores higher, which puts New York Times Co. Class A Common Stock at the very top of the group. For reference, the middle of the group scores 4.6 and a company needs 6.0 to reach its top quarter, which leaves New York Times Co. Class A Common Stock well above the median.
Profitability scores 7.6 out of 10, which reads as strong. The median across 77 Communication Services companies is 3.7, so New York Times Co. Class A Common Stock is well above its peers on this pillar and ranks at the 88th percentile. High profitability means each unit of capital and of sales is turning into more profit than at most of its peers, which is usually the first sign of pricing power or a cost advantage.
On solvency, New York Times Co. Class A Common Stock scores 9.6, a strong reading. Its peers have a median of 4.8 across 62 Communication Services companies, which places it well above them, at the 95th percentile. Balance sheet strength like this rarely makes headlines, but it is what lets a company keep investing when credit gets expensive.
New York Times Co. Class A Common Stock’s growth score is 6.7 out of 10 (average). Against a median of 4.7 among 64 Communication Services companies, that is well above the group and the 70th percentile. Growth near the median is neither a reason to buy nor a concern, but it does mean the quality case rests more on the other pillars.
On efficiency, New York Times Co. Class A Common Stock scores 8.5, a strong reading. Its peers have a median of 6.1 across 76 Communication Services companies, which places it well above them, at the 93rd percentile. High efficiency means assets and earnings are being turned into cash and output better than at most peers, a sign of a well run operation.
On predictability, New York Times Co. Class A Common Stock scores 7.4, a strong reading. Its peers have a median of 4.5 across 80 Communication Services companies, which places it well above them, at the 97th percentile. Steady results like these are what make a long term view of the business easier to hold.
Solvency at 9.6 is New York Times Co. Class A Common Stock’s best pillar and growth at 6.7 its weakest. The 2.9 point gap between them is worth keeping in mind when reading the overall. Leading with solvency is a defensive strength: it protects the business more than it grows it. Slow growth limits how fast the business can compound, even when everything else is in order.
New York Times Co. Class A Common Stock has no pillar below the median of Communication Services companies, which leaves little room to rise. Its exposure is to slippage instead, and profitability carries the most weight: one point less there would mean an overall of roughly 7.7 rather than 7.9. The weights add up to 100 points (profitability 25, solvency 20, growth 20, efficiency 15, predictability 20), and New York Times Co. Class A Common Stock has a reading on every pillar.
For a fair comparison, start with companies of a similar size: the Communication Services companies below are nearest to New York Times Co. Class A Common Stock by market value, each scored on the same pillars.
How much profit the company generates from its capital and sales.
The company’s ability to service debt and meet its obligations.
How fast revenue, earnings and cash flow are compounding.
How well assets and earnings convert into cash and output.
How stable and consistent results have been over time.
Each metric is scored from 0 to 10 against sector-aware benchmarks, where higher is better. Metrics roll up into five pillars, and the pillars combine into the overall score using the weights shown. Sector-sensitive metrics are judged relative to peers in the same sector.
This score is a systematic, backward-looking read of reported fundamentals. It does not judge valuation, management quality, competitive moat, or future prospects, and can be distorted by one-off items or unusual accounting. Treat it as a starting point, not a recommendation.
Educational only. Not investment advice.
On this reading New York Times Co. Class A Common Stock scores 7.9 out of 10, which reads as high quality. Its strongest pillar is solvency, its weakest is growth. Quality is not the same as a good investment: the score says nothing about the price you would pay.
New York Times Co. Class A Common Stock ranks at the 100th percentile of the 80 Communication Services companies Lemma publishes a score for. The median there is 4.6 and the top quarter starts at 6.0, against New York Times Co. Class A Common Stock’s 7.9.
Five pillars, each scored from 0 to 10 against sector-aware benchmarks and then weighted into one overall reading: profitability, solvency, growth, efficiency and predictability. Everything comes from reported financials, and nothing comes from price, sentiment or forecasts.
This page last changed on October 19, 2026. The score moves with the financial statements, so the page changes when a new filing moves the reading rather than on a schedule. Live figures for NYT are in the app.
No. Quality and valuation are separate questions, and a good business at the wrong price is still a bad purchase. Score the business here, then price it with a DCF you control.
Inside Lemma Analysis the same five pillars run on every company we cover, with the metrics behind each one, current fundamentals, a DCF you control and a watchlist that tells you when the price catches up.
Free to start · No credit card