Cytek Biosciences vs Mesa Laboratories
CTKB and MLAB side by side, both in laboratory apparatus and analytical, optical, measuring, and controlling instruments. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CTKB and MLAB compare
Cytek Biosciences and Mesa Laboratories are about the same size, with market caps of $749M and $779M.
Cytek Biosciences grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.5% versus 2.5% for Mesa Laboratories).
Mesa Laboratories keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.7% compared with −39.1% at Cytek Biosciences.
Mesa Laboratories pays a dividend yielding 0.46%; Cytek Biosciences does not pay one.
Mesa Laboratories scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 8 for Cytek Biosciences), 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 | CTKB | MLAB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $749M | $779M |
| Share price | $5.76 | $139.21 |
| Change, 1 year | 21.3% | 70.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −70.4% | −55.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.10 | 1.00 |
| Employees | 702 | 717 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 121× |
| P/S | 3.6× | 3.1× (better) |
| P/B | 2.3× (better) | 4.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 28.9× |
| P/FCF | – | 15.8× |
| PEG | – | 1.31 |
| FCF yield | −1.8% | 6.3% (better) |
| Fair value | $6.48 | $81.27 |
| Margin of safety | 11.0% (better) | −71.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.5% (better) | 2.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 209% (better) | 13.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 13.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 54.7% | 64.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | −21.1% | 10.4% (better) |
| Net margin | −39.1% | 2.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | −6.5% | 19.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | −23.2% | 3.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −12.8% | 7.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | – |
| Interest coverage | −562.6× | 2.6× (better) |
| Current ratio | 4.46 (better) | 1.90 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.10 (better) | 2.54 |
| Piotroski F-score | 3 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.46% |
| Payout ratio | – | 53.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | −0.00% | – |
| Shareholder yield | −0.00% | 0.46% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 62.7% | 89.9% |
| Held by insiders | 10.6% | 3.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$216K |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.5% | 7.0% |
Go deeper
- CTKB stock overview
- CTKB income statement
- CTKB valuation and score
- MLAB stock overview
- MLAB income statement
- MLAB valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.