StockData

Cryo-Cell International vs NewGenIvf

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

How CCEL and NIVF compare

NewGenIvf grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (336% versus −2.0% for Cryo-Cell International).

NewGenIvf keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 41.7% compared with −6.2% at Cryo-Cell International.

NewGenIvf scores higher on the StockData Score (7 against 2 for Cryo-Cell International), 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.

MetricCCELNIVF
Size and price
Market cap$39.1M–
Share price$4.85$0.231
Change, 1 year19.8%−100.0%
Change, 5 years−60.4%–
Beta (5Y)0.262.87
Employees7287
StockData Score
Total score27 (better)
Valuation score00
Growth score12 (better)
Performance score04 (better)
Health score11
Dividend score00
Valuation
P/S1.3×–
EV/EBITDA41.0×–
P/FCF8.4×–
FCF yield11.9%–
Growth
Revenue growth (TTM)−2.0%336% (better)
Revenue growth, 5Y average0.27%–
Profitability
Gross margin78.5% (better)4.0%
Operating margin0.61% (better)−45.2%
Net margin−6.2%41.7% (better)
FCF margin14.9% (better)−46.7%
Return on equity–77.9%
Return on invested capital–−70.9%
Financial health
Net debt / EBITDA3.65–
Interest coverage0.1× (better)−17.4×
Current ratio0.861.06 (better)
Altman Z-score−0.06–
Piotroski F-score55
Dividends and buybacks
Dividend yield0.00%–
Shareholder yield0.00%–
Ownership
Held by institutions6.9%–
Held by insiders41.7%–
Insider net buying, 12 months–$4.2M
Short interest, % of float0.26%–

Go deeper

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