monday.com Ltd. (MNDY) — Available-Data Snapshot

We don't publish a discounted-cash-flow fair value for monday.com Ltd. (MNDY) because the free data sources we rely on don't expose the multi-year financials a DCF needs — common for small or thinly-covered listings. Rather than invent numbers, this page shows an honest snapshot of what the public data does support: the current price and size, any relative valuation multiples that exist, a book-value view, and a price-based read. Treat it as a descriptive starting point, not a valuation and not investment advice.

On the numbers we do have, MNDY trades at a recent price of $94.44, a market capitalisation of about $3,992,367,872, sitting 23% of the way up its 52-week range ($57.50–$220.80), on the NasdaqGS.

The standard alternative to a DCF is relative valuation — comparing MNDY's trading multiples against a sector benchmark. Here that gives P/E of 40.9× (richer than the peer median of 28.4×); Fwd P/E of 14.1× (cheaper than the peer median of 18.8×); P/B of 6.5× (cheaper than the peer median of 19.9×); P/S of 2.9× (cheaper than the peer median of 11.1×); EV/EBITDA of 62.1× (richer than the peer median of 26.8×). A cheaper multiple than peers can flag a discount or a market that expects weaker growth; it is a comparison, not a recommendation.

The asset, or book-value, lens is the classic tool for asset-heavy businesses and financials. MNDY shows a price-to-book (P/B) of 6.46 and book value of $14.62 per share. Price-to-book compares the market price to the accounting net-asset value per share; below 1.0 can mean a discount to net assets or that the market is pricing in trouble — descriptive either way, never a buy signal on its own.

Finally, a price-based read — explicitly not a valuation. MNDY is in a mixed trend, trading -57.2% from its 52-week high. Over the past year the stock is -47.1%. Moving-average trend and 52-week position describe where the stock has traded; they say nothing about what it is worth.

What's missing and why: we can't build a DCF for MNDY because the data source doesn't reliably provide dividend. We would rather say so plainly than manufacture a precise-looking number from nothing. As coverage improves, or for larger and more widely-followed listings, a full intrinsic-value model becomes possible.