Inlif vs Li Bang International
INLF and LBGJ side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How INLF and LBGJ compare
Inlif grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (16.5% versus −31.0% for Li Bang International).
Inlif keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of −29.6% compared with −49.8% at Li Bang International.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | INLF | LBGJ |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Share price | $0.515 | $1.93 |
| Change, 1 year | −100.0% | −100.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 2.82 | 1.05 |
| Employees | 16 | 134 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 0 | 0 |
| Health score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 16.5% (better) | −31.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −439% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −354% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 23.3% (better) | 19.0% |
| Operating margin | −31.6% (better) | −56.7% |
| Net margin | −29.6% (better) | −49.8% |
| FCF margin | −11.3% | – |
| Return on equity | −12.5% (better) | −15.1% |
| Return on invested capital | −18.9% | −11.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.10 (better) | 0.00 |
| Interest coverage | −37.0× | – |
| Current ratio | 5.65 (better) | 0.79 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 0.43% | 0.00% |
| Held by insiders | 99.1% | 83.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $27.3K | $288K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2617% | 1.5% |
Go deeper
- INLF stock overview
- INLF income statement
- INLF valuation and score
- LBGJ stock overview
- LBGJ income statement
- LBGJ valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.