A2Z Cust2Mate Solutions vs Inlif
AZ and INLF side by side, both in general industrial machinery and equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AZ and INLF compare
A2Z Cust2Mate Solutions grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (153% versus 16.5% for Inlif).
Inlif keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of −29.6% compared with −236% at A2Z Cust2Mate Solutions.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | AZ | INLF |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Share price | $6.25 | $0.700 |
| Change, 1 year | 12.6% | −100.0% |
| Change, 5 years | −68.4% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.10 | 3.00 |
| Employees | 122 | 16 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 153% (better) | 16.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 49.2% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −439% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −354% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 20.1% | 23.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | −268% | −31.6% (better) |
| Net margin | −236% | −29.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | −248% | −11.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | −69.8% | −12.5% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −108% | −18.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.03 (better) | 0.10 |
| Interest coverage | – | −37.0× |
| Current ratio | 7.52 (better) | 5.65 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 4 |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 44.4% | 0.43% |
| Held by insiders | 2.5% | 99.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | $27.3K |
| Short interest, % of float | 12.1% | 2617% |
Go deeper
- AZ stock overview
- AZ income statement
- AZ valuation and score
- INLF stock overview
- INLF income statement
- INLF valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.