Foster L B vs Greenwave Technology Solutions
FSTR and GWAV side by side, both in wholesale trade-durable goods. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FSTR and GWAV compare
Foster L B is the larger company, worth 258 times as much as Greenwave Technology Solutions ($445M against $1.7M).
Greenwave Technology Solutions grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (71.8% versus 15.8% for Foster L B).
Foster L B keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.3% compared with −27.7% at Greenwave Technology Solutions.
Foster L B scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 7 for Greenwave Technology Solutions), 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 | FSTR | GWAV |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $445M | $1.7M |
| Share price | $42.31 | $2.08 |
| Change, 1 year | 50.6% | −69.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 152% | −100.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.94 | 1.53 |
| Employees | 1,191 | 172 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 32.8× | – |
| P/S | 0.8× | 0.0× (better) |
| P/B | 2.4× | 0.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.4× | – |
| P/FCF | 10.7× | – |
| FCF yield | 9.3% | – |
| Fair value | $36.11 | $41.06 |
| Margin of safety | −17.2% | 94.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 15.8% | 71.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 1.7% | 482% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 182% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 187% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −0.57% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 20.9% | 31.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 4.4% (better) | −25.1% |
| Net margin | 2.3% (better) | −27.7% |
| FCF margin | 7.1% | – |
| Return on equity | 7.6% (better) | −56.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 7.2% (better) | −35.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.15 (better) | 0.33 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.57 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | −10.0× |
| Current ratio | 1.89 (better) | 0.23 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.15 (better) | −14.25 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 1.7% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.7% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 79.0% | 1.8% |
| Held by insiders | 21.4% | – |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$6.6M | $8.0M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.7% | – |
Go deeper
- FSTR stock overview
- FSTR income statement
- FSTR valuation and score
- GWAV stock overview
- GWAV income statement
- GWAV valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.