ATIF vs Hang Feng Technology Innovation
AUC and FOFO side by side, both in management and public relations services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AUC and FOFO compare
ATIF grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (93.5% versus 14.7% for Hang Feng Technology Innovation).
ATIF scores higher on the StockData Score (7 against 6 for Hang Feng Technology Innovation), 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 | AUC | FOFO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Share price | $6.51 | $1.77 |
| Change, 1 year | −18.6% | −85.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −90.4% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | −0.12 | −2.32 |
| Employees | 6 | 14 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 0 | 0 |
| Health score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 93.5% (better) | 14.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 13.2% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −1206% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −850% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | −70.2% (better) | −419% |
| Net margin | – | −412% |
| FCF margin | – | −55.4% |
| Return on equity | – | −159% |
| Return on invested capital | −3.6% (better) | −523% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Current ratio | 23.67 | 36.70 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 4 |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | – | 1.1% |
| Held by insiders | 22.4% | 52.8% |
| Short interest, % of float | 0.08% | 0.06% |
Go deeper
- AUC stock overview
- AUC income statement
- AUC valuation and score
- FOFO stock overview
- FOFO income statement
- FOFO valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.