SemiLEDs vs Nano Labs
LEDS and NA side by side, both in electronic components and accessories. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LEDS and NA compare
SemiLEDs grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−16.6% versus −33.5% for Nano Labs).
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | LEDS | NA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $17.0M | – |
| Share price | $2.06 | $1.46 |
| Change, 1 year | −16.6% | −67.0% |
| Change, 5 years | −69.8% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.03 | 0.98 |
| Employees | 118 | 67 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 5 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | 0.7× | – |
| P/B | 5.5× | – |
| P/FCF | 4.4× | – |
| FCF yield | 22.7% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −16.6% (better) | −33.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 47.9% | 66.2% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 10.3% (better) | −147% |
| Operating margin | −5.5% | 264% (better) |
| Net margin | – | 502% |
| FCF margin | 14.9% (better) | −401% |
| Return on equity | – | 26.5% |
| Return on invested capital | −120% | 10.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.43 (better) | 0.51 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 2.34 |
| Interest coverage | – | 4.2× |
| Current ratio | 1.03 | 1.20 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | −13.19 | – |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | – |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 1.7% | – |
| Held by insiders | – | 42.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$85.1K |
Go deeper
- LEDS stock overview
- LEDS income statement
- LEDS valuation and score
- NA stock overview
- NA income statement
- NA valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.