Axcelis Technologies vs Cricut
ACLS and CRCT side by side, both in special industry machinery, except metalworking. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ACLS and CRCT compare
Axcelis Technologies is the larger company, worth 1.8 times as much as Cricut ($3.4B against $1.9B).
On earnings, Cricut is cheaper: it trades at 19.7× trailing earnings, against 33.1× for Axcelis Technologies.
Axcelis Technologies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.3% versus −0.91% for Cricut).
Cricut keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.4% compared with 11.7% at Axcelis Technologies.
Cricut pays a dividend yielding 2.3%; Axcelis Technologies does not pay one.
Cricut scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 6 for Axcelis Technologies), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | ACLS | CRCT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.4B | $1.9B |
| Share price | $111.17 | $8.88 |
| Change, 1 year | 27.2% | 85.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 77.7% | −64.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.74 | 1.00 |
| Employees | 1,465 | 700 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 33.1× | 19.7× (better) |
| P/S | 3.9× | 2.6× (better) |
| P/B | 3.1× (better) | 4.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 27.0× | 11.1× (better) |
| P/FCF | 57.3× | – |
| PEG | – | 2.56 |
| FCF yield | 1.7% | – |
| Fair value | $75.82 | $11.61 |
| Margin of safety | −46.6% | 23.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.3% (better) | −0.91% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 12.1% (better) | −5.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −23.1% | 17.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −20.6% | 18.4% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 21.1% (better) | −13.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 42.8% | 58.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | 10.3% | 16.7% (better) |
| Net margin | 11.7% | 13.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 6.7% | – |
| Return on equity | 9.8% | 25.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 14.2% | 63.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.00 |
| Interest coverage | 15.7× | 254× (better) |
| Current ratio | 4.43 (better) | 2.40 |
| Altman Z-score | 7.70 (better) | 6.89 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.3% |
| Payout ratio | – | 44.3% |
| Buyback yield | – | 1.7% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 3.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 101% | 14.3% |
| Held by insiders | 1.5% | 75.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$6.4M (better) | −$9.3M |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.4% | 9.6% |
Go deeper
- ACLS stock overview
- ACLS income statement
- ACLS valuation and score
- CRCT stock overview
- CRCT income statement
- CRCT valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.