StockData

Airsculpt Technologies vs Concord Medical Services

AIRS and CCM side by side, both in health services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.

How AIRS and CCM compare

Concord Medical Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (19.9% versus −6.3% for Airsculpt Technologies).

Airsculpt Technologies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of −6.4% compared with −20.2% at Concord Medical Services.

Airsculpt Technologies scores higher on the StockData Score (4 against 3 for Concord Medical Services), 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.

MetricAIRSCCM
Size and price
Market cap$60.3M–
Share price$0.837$3.62
Change, 1 year−86.3%−24.4%
Change, 5 years−94.4%−85.3%
Beta (5Y)2.470.32
Employees330610
StockData Score
Total score4 (better)3
Valuation score2 (better)0
Growth score12 (better)
Performance score01 (better)
Health score1 (better)0
Dividend score00
Valuation
P/S0.4×–
P/B0.6×–
EV/EBITDA16.5×–
FCF yield−4.2%–
Growth
Revenue growth (TTM)−6.3%19.9% (better)
Revenue growth, 5Y average19.3% (better)15.6%
Profitability
Gross margin60.2% (better)5.6%
Operating margin−4.7% (better)−56.8%
Net margin−6.4% (better)−20.2%
FCF margin−1.7% (better)−56.1%
Return on equity−10.1%–
Return on invested capital−4.2% (better)−19.3%
Financial health
Debt / equity0.35–
Net debt / EBITDA4.33–
Interest coverage−1.4× (better)−1.7×
Current ratio0.85 (better)0.48
Altman Z-score0.70–
Piotroski F-score36 (better)
Dividends and buybacks
Buyback yield−52.5%–
Shareholder yield−52.5%–
Ownership
Held by institutions63.3%0.03%
Held by insiders76.6%0.83%
Insider net buying, 12 months$2.0M–
Short interest, % of float19.1%–

Go deeper

For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.