Tyler Technologies, Inc. ranks below the peer group median, with a relatively even profile across the main dimensions. The market setup has weakened, with clear trend damage and relative performance under pressure. Current market behavior is broadly confirming the weaker structural profile.
Peer-relative scores, weakest to strongest
Tyler Technologies provides software solutions for the public sector, focusing on SaaS and cloud-based products.
The market prices Tyler Technologies as a company with declining operational quality and capital returns, not as a sustainable quality leader in the software sector. With a ROIC of just 6.2% (below peer median for FY25) and an operating margin that has slipped to 14.5% (declining trend over the last six quarters), Tyler’s fundamentals fall short of peer benchmarks. This leads investors to price the stock so that any sign of operational weakness or volatility triggers a disproportionate reaction in valuation, rather than granting it the defensive premium typical of sector leaders. In public sector software, sustained peer outperformance is critical; Tyler is losing ground here despite growth initiatives, reinforcing the perception that the company cannot command a quality premium. As a result, the market prices Tyler Technologies at a level where each quarterly result has an outsized impact on valuation. Only a clear and sustained return to peer-level margins and capital returns over at least two consecutive quarters would shift the market’s valuation stance.
Break down TYL's position across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
This analysis is rule-based and descriptive. Peer-relative scores are derived from functional peer group comparisons using publicly available financial data. Scores reflect structural positioning only and do not constitute investment advice, a buy or sell recommendation, or a forecast of future performance. AssetNext peer scores are recalculated periodically as new data becomes available.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.