High Templar Tech vs Metalpha Technology
HTT and MATH side by side, both in finance services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HTT and MATH compare
Metalpha Technology grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−16.7% versus −81.1% for High Templar Tech).
High Templar Tech keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 1730% compared with 3.5% at Metalpha Technology.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | HTT | MATH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Share price | $1.70 | $0.934 |
| Change, 1 year | −64.2% | −60.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 11.8% | −42.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.04 | 0.69 |
| Employees | 940 | 35 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 8 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −81.1% | −16.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −59.3% | 177% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 673% (better) | −91.9% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −92.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 7.1% | 41.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | −973% | 3.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 1730% (better) | 3.5% |
| FCF margin | 1393% | – |
| Return on equity | 6.2% | – |
| Return on invested capital | −5.7% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.14 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 76.1× |
| Current ratio | 5.75 (better) | 1.12 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 6.0% | 0.85% |
| Held by insiders | 42.4% | 14.0% |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 0.11% |
Go deeper
- HTT stock overview
- HTT income statement
- HTT valuation and score
- MATH stock overview
- MATH income statement
- MATH valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.