Ciena vs Vistance Networks
CIEN and VISN side by side, both in communications equipment. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CIEN and VISN compare
Ciena is the larger company, worth 30 times as much as Vistance Networks ($45.5B against $1.5B).
On earnings, Vistance Networks is cheaper: it trades at 0.2× trailing earnings, against 71.6× for Ciena.
Ciena grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (32.6% versus 23.7% for Vistance Networks).
Vistance Networks keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 399% compared with 10.9% at Ciena.
Vistance Networks pays a dividend yielding 229%; Ciena does not pay one.
Vistance Networks scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 12 for Ciena), 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 | CIEN | VISN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $45.5B | $1.5B |
| Share price | $320.72 | $6.54 |
| Change, 1 year | 69.5% | −58.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 430% | −36.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.44 | 1.76 |
| Employees | 9,080 | 4,500 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 71.6× | 0.2× (better) |
| P/S | 7.6× | 0.8× (better) |
| P/B | 14.9× | 0.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 62.4× | 6.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 55.8× | 17.4× (better) |
| FCF yield | 1.8% | 5.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $148.80 | – |
| Margin of safety | −116% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 32.6% (better) | 23.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.2% (better) | −25.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 365% | 821% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 362% | 1054% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −18.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 44.1% | 45.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | 12.3% (better) | 1.7% |
| Net margin | 10.9% | 399% (better) |
| FCF margin | 13.5% (better) | 4.8% |
| Return on equity | 22.4% | 22304% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 20.0% (better) | 0.92% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.06 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.81 (better) | −0.52 |
| Interest coverage | 10.6× | – |
| Current ratio | 3.80 (better) | 2.57 |
| Altman Z-score | 6.72 (better) | 2.02 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 229% |
| Buyback yield | 0.85% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 0.85% | 229% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 93.3% | 100% |
| Held by insiders | 1.2% | 26.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$95.9M | −$1.2M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.8% | 23.7% |
Go deeper
- CIEN stock overview
- CIEN income statement
- CIEN valuation and score
- VISN stock overview
- VISN income statement
- VISN valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.