Consensus Cloud Solutions vs Ooma
CCSI and OOMA side by side, both in computer programming, data processing, and other computer related services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CCSI and OOMA compare
Consensus Cloud Solutions is the larger company, worth 1.6 times as much as Ooma ($819M against $505M).
On earnings, Consensus Cloud Solutions is cheaper: it trades at 9.0× trailing earnings, against 48.2× for Ooma.
Ooma grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.2% versus 2.4% for Consensus Cloud Solutions).
Consensus Cloud Solutions keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 26.4% compared with 3.6% at Ooma.
Consensus Cloud Solutions scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 10 for Ooma), 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 | CCSI | OOMA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $819M | $505M |
| Share price | $44.69 | $18.30 |
| Change, 1 year | 81.7% | 55.0% |
| Change, 5 years | −29.8% | −8.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.02 | 0.77 |
| Employees | 520 | 1,420 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 | 4 |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 9.0× (better) | 48.2× |
| P/S | 2.3× | 1.6× (better) |
| P/B | 17.0× | 5.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.5× (better) | 31.0× |
| P/FCF | 7.5× (better) | 16.7× |
| PEG | 1.48 | – |
| FCF yield | 13.4% (better) | 6.0% |
| Fair value | $84.61 | $10.69 |
| Margin of safety | 47.2% (better) | −71.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 2.4% | 17.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 1.1% | 10.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 15.2% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 17.3% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −10.7% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 80.0% (better) | 61.5% |
| Operating margin | 40.8% (better) | 3.6% |
| Net margin | 26.4% (better) | 3.6% |
| FCF margin | 30.7% (better) | 9.9% |
| Return on equity | 415% (better) | 11.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 23.0% (better) | 14.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 11.39 | 0.01 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.65 (better) | −1.03 |
| Interest coverage | 4.4× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.99 (better) | 0.95 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.19 | 3.07 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 6.8% (better) | 1.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 6.8% (better) | 1.9% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 99.3% | 72.3% |
| Held by insiders | 5.8% | 12.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$341K (better) | −$5.7M |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.4% | 7.4% |
Go deeper
- CCSI stock overview
- CCSI income statement
- CCSI valuation and score
- OOMA stock overview
- OOMA income statement
- OOMA valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.