Abits vs SHF
ABTS and SHFS side by side, both in finance services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ABTS and SHFS compare
Abits grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (36.0% versus −14.6% for SHF).
Abits keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of −31.4% compared with −61.3% at SHF.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | ABTS | SHFS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | – | $23.1K |
| Share price | $0.355 | $0.022 |
| Change, 1 year | −94.5% | −99.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −99.5% | −100.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.56 | 1.00 |
| Employees | 11 | 39 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 8 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | – | 0.0× |
| P/B | – | 0.0× |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 36.0% (better) | −14.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 89.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 40.3% | – |
| Operating margin | 40.3% (better) | −63.2% |
| Net margin | −31.4% (better) | −61.3% |
| FCF margin | −18.5% | – |
| Return on equity | −33.3% (better) | −79.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 33.6% (better) | −114% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.18 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.32 | – |
| Current ratio | 0.39 | 1.59 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | – | −13.91 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Shareholder yield | – | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 2.2% | 77.4% |
| Held by insiders | 67.2% | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.3% | – |
Go deeper
- ABTS stock overview
- ABTS income statement
- ABTS valuation and score
- SHFS stock overview
- SHFS income statement
- SHFS valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.