Brand Finance logo

PETRONAS is once again Malaysia’s Most Valuable Brand while Digi reclaims Strongest Brand title

26 August 2021
This article is more than 2 years old.
  • As a result of COVID-19 crisis, total value of Malaysia’s top 100 most valuable brands in 2021 has dropped by 12% from previous year to US$49.3 billion
  • PETRONAS continues to dominate as most valuable Malaysian brand for 11th consecutive year, brand value US$12.0 billion
  • Digi reclaims title of Malaysia’s strongest brand from PETRONAS after a year, brand strength score 87.3 out of 100
  • Top 10 most valuable Malaysian brands account for 63% of total brand value in Brand Finance Malaysia 100 2021 ranking, while bottom 50 brands contribute only 7% of total brand value
  • All top 10 brands managed to retain their positions compared to last year and there are no new entrants in this year’s top 100 ranking

View the full Brand Finance Malaysia 100 2021 report here

Every year, leading brand valuation and strategy consultancy Brand Finance puts thousands of the world’s top brands to the test, evaluating which are the most valuable and strongest. Brand Finance Asia Pacific has just released their annual Malaysia 100 2021 report, showcasing the top 100 most valuable and strongest Malaysian brands.

PETRONAS, Maybank and Genting continue to dominate as the nation’s top 3 brands once again this year, with a combined brand value of nearly US$19 billion, while the remaining 7 brands in the top 10 also maintained their positions in the ranking with a combined brand value of US$12 billion.

PETRONAS maintains the top spot for the 11th consecutive year, with a brand value of US$12.0 billion – still the only brand to break the US$10 billion mark in Malaysia. Maybank retains 2nd position (brand value US$3.7 billion) followed by Genting (brand value US$3.1 billion) in 3rd.

The brand value gap between first and second remains wide open at over US$8 billion, showcasing just how dominant the oil and gas giant is, even though PETRONAS saw a brand value decrease of 21% this year.

In addition to measuring overall brand value, Brand Finance also determines the relative strength of brands through a balanced scorecard of metrics evaluating marketing investment, stakeholder equity, and business performance. Alongside revenue forecasts, brand strength is a crucial driver of brand value. According to these criteria, Digi has reclaimed the title of Malaysia’s strongest brand from PETRONAS, with a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score of 87.3 out of 100 and a corresponding AAA brand strength rating. PETRONAS’s BSI score is 87.0 and Maybank follows just marginally behind with a BSI score of 86.8.

Samir Dixit, Managing Director of Brand Finance Asia Pacific commented:

“Brand strength – the most accurate measure of brand competitiveness in the market – has remained stagnant for most Malaysian brands outside of the successful top 10. While they may be doing well locally, many have been losing out to some of the key competitors in the region. Malaysian brands need to better monitor and boldly invest in their brand strength to build up competitiveness outside of their home market.”

The top 10 account for 63% of the total brand value in the Brand Finance Malaysia 100 2021 ranking, while the bottom 50 brands contribute only 7% of the total brand value, highlighting the significant effort required from brands outside the top 10 should they wish to contest the status quo across the nation.

The brand with the highest intangible value continues to be Padini with a brand value to enterprise value ratio of 61%, followed by Bonia at 43%, highlighting the role of brands in business success, especially in the retail sector.

Samir Dixit, Managing Director of Brand Finance Asia Pacific commented:

“The Brand Finance Malaysia 100 2021 ranking continues to be very top-heavy yet again this year. We would like to see a more diverse mix at the top and more significant brand value increases at the bottom.

To do so, brands must focus on building brand strength, rather than being sales and offers driven. Such tactics might help in the short term, but can ultimately undermine the long-term value of brands. Boards must treat brands as strategic assets, instead of seeing them as legal trademarks only.”


Note to Editors

Every year, Brand Finance puts 5,000 of the biggest brands to the test, evaluating their strength and quantifying their value, and publishes nearly 100 reports, ranking brands across all sectors and countries. Malaysia’s 100 most valuable brands are included in the Brand Finance Malaysia 100 2021 ranking.

The full rankings, additional insights, charts, more information about the methodology, as well as definitions of key terms are to be found in the Brand Finance Malaysia 100 2021 report.

Brand value is understood as the net economic benefit that a brand owner would achieve by licensing the brand in the open market. Brand strength is the efficacy of a brand’s performance on intangible measures relative to its competitors. Please see below for a full explanation of our methodology.

Media Contacts

Andrew Ee
Communications Director – Asia Pacific
Brand Finance

About Brand Finance          

Brand Finance is the world’s leading brand valuation consultancy. Bridging the gap between marketing and finance, Brand Finance evaluates the strength of brands and quantifies their financial value to help organisations of all kinds make strategic decisions.

Headquartered in London, Brand Finance has offices in over 20 countries, offering services on all continents. Every year, Brand Finance conducts more than 5,000 brand valuations, supported by original market research, and publishes nearly 100 reports which rank brands across all sectors and countries.

Brand Finance is a regulated accountancy firm, leading the standardisation of the brand valuation industry. Brand Finance was the first to be certified by independent auditors as compliant with both ISO 10668 and ISO 20671, and has received the official endorsement of the Marketing Accountability Standards Board (MASB) in the United States.


Definition of Brand

Brand is defined as a marketing-related intangible asset including, but not limited to, names, terms, signs, symbols, logos, and designs, intended to identify goods, services, or entities, creating distinctive images and associations in the minds of stakeholders, thereby generating economic benefits.

Brand Value

Brand value refers to the present value of earnings specifically related to brand reputation. Organisations own and control these earnings by owning trademark rights.

All brand valuation methodologies are essentially trying to identify this, although the approach and assumptions differ. As a result, published brand values can be different.

These differences are similar to the way equity analysts provide business valuations that are different to one another. The only way you find out the “real” value is by looking at what people really pay.

As a result, Brand Finance always incorporates a review of what users of brands actually pay for the use of brands in the form of brand royalty agreements, which are found in more or less every sector in the world.

This is known as the “Royalty Relief” methodology and is by far the most widely used approach for brand valuations since it is grounded in reality.

It is the basis for our public rankings but we always augment it with a real understanding of people’s perceptions and their effects on demand – from our database of market research on over 3000 brands in over 30 markets.

Brand Valuation Methodology

For our rankings, Brand Finance uses the simplest method possible to help readers understand, gain trust in, and actively use brand valuations.

Brand Finance calculates the values of brands in its rankings using the Royalty Relief approach – a brand valuation method compliant with the industry standards set in ISO 10668.

Our Brand Strength Index assessment, a balanced scorecard of brand-related measures, is also compliant with international standards (ISO 20671) and operates as a predictive tool of future brand value changes and a control panel to help business improving marketing.

We do this in the following four steps:

1. Brand Impact

We review what brands already pay in royalty agreements. This is augmented by an analysis of how brands impact profitability in the sector versus generic brands.

This results in a range of possible royalties that could be charged in the sector for brands (for example a range of 0% to 2% of revenue).

2. Brand Strength

We adjust the rate higher or lower for brands by analysing Brand Strength. We analyse brand strength by looking at three core pillars: “Investment” which are activities supporting the future strength of the brand; “Equity” which are real perceptions sourced from our original market research and other data partners; “Performance” which are brand-related measures of business results, such as market share.

Each brand is assigned a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score out of 100, which feeds into the brand value calculation. Based on the score, each brand is assigned a corresponding Brand Rating up to AAA+, in a format similar to a credit rating.

3. Brand Impact x Brand Strength

The BSI score is applied to the royalty range to arrive at a royalty rate. For example, if the royalty range in a sector is 0-5% and a brand has a BSI score of 80 out of 100, then an appropriate royalty rate for the use of this brand in the given sector will be 4%.

4. Brand Value Calculation

We determine brand-specific revenues as a proportion of parent company revenues attributable to the brand in question and forecast those revenues by analysing historic revenues, equity analyst forecasts, and economic growth rates.

We then apply the royalty rate to the forecast revenues to derive brand revenues and apply the relevant valuation assumptions to arrive at a discounted, post-tax present value which equals the brand value.


Brand Finance has produced this study with an independent and unbiased analysis. The values derived and opinions presented in this study are based on publicly available information and certain assumptions that Brand Finance used where such data was deficient or unclear. Brand Finance accepts no responsibility and will not be liable in the event that the publicly available information relied upon is subsequently found to be inaccurate. The opinions and financial analysis expressed in the study are not to be construed as providing investment or business advice. Brand Finance does not intend the study to be relied upon for any reason and excludes all liability to any body, government, or organisation.

The data presented in this study form part of Brand Finance's proprietary database, are provided for the benefit of the media, and are not to be used in part or in full for any commercial or technical purpose without written permission from Brand Finance.

Get in Touch