AZTA Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Bionano Genomics has a net margin of -28.21% compared to Azenta's net margin of -48.04%. Azenta's return on equity of -3.48% beat Bionano Genomics's return on equity of -141.6%.

Azenta has a consensus price target of $41.60, signalling upside risk potential of 55.69%. On the other hand Bionano Genomics has an analysts' consensus of $7.33 which suggests that it could grow by 99.82%. Given that Bionano Genomics has higher upside potential than Azenta, analysts believe Bionano Genomics is more attractive than Azenta.

Azenta has a beta of 1.638, which suggesting that the stock is 63.767% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Bionano Genomics has a beta of 2.367, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 136.713%.

Azenta has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Bionano Genomics offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Azenta pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Bionano Genomics pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Azenta quarterly revenues are $143.4M, which are larger than Bionano Genomics quarterly revenues of $6.5M. Azenta's net income of -$40.5M is lower than Bionano Genomics's net income of -$3.1M. Notably, Azenta's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Bionano Genomics's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Azenta is 2.03x versus 0.16x for Bionano Genomics. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Bruker has a net margin of -28.21% compared to Azenta's net margin of 2.17%. Azenta's return on equity of -3.48% beat Bruker's return on equity of 4.53%.

Azenta has a consensus price target of $41.60, signalling upside risk potential of 55.69%. On the other hand Bruker has an analysts' consensus of $55.13 which suggests that it could grow by 50.22%. Given that Azenta has higher upside potential than Bruker, analysts believe Azenta is more attractive than Bruker.

Azenta has a beta of 1.638, which suggesting that the stock is 63.767% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Bruker has a beta of 1.228, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 22.782%.

Azenta has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Bruker offers a yield of 0.55% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.05 per share. Azenta pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Bruker pays out 26.7% of its earnings as a dividend. Bruker's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Azenta quarterly revenues are $143.4M, which are smaller than Bruker quarterly revenues of $801.4M. Azenta's net income of -$40.5M is lower than Bruker's net income of $17.4M. Notably, Azenta's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Bruker's PE ratio is 70.58x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Azenta is 2.03x versus 1.61x for Bruker. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Harvard Bioscience has a net margin of -28.21% compared to Azenta's net margin of -231.19%. Azenta's return on equity of -3.48% beat Harvard Bioscience's return on equity of -103.83%.

Azenta has a consensus price target of $41.60, signalling upside risk potential of 55.69%. On the other hand Harvard Bioscience has an analysts' consensus of $3.00 which suggests that it could grow by 542.4%. Given that Harvard Bioscience has higher upside potential than Azenta, analysts believe Harvard Bioscience is more attractive than Azenta.

Azenta has a beta of 1.638, which suggesting that the stock is 63.767% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Harvard Bioscience has a beta of 1.441, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 44.128%.

Azenta has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Harvard Bioscience offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Azenta pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Harvard Bioscience pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Azenta quarterly revenues are $143.4M, which are larger than Harvard Bioscience quarterly revenues of $21.8M. Azenta's net income of -$40.5M is higher than Harvard Bioscience's net income of -$50.3M. Notably, Azenta's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Harvard Bioscience's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Azenta is 2.03x versus 0.22x for Harvard Bioscience. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Kestra Medical Technologies has a net margin of -28.21% compared to Azenta's net margin of --. Azenta's return on equity of -3.48% beat Kestra Medical Technologies's return on equity of --.

Azenta has a consensus price target of $41.60, signalling upside risk potential of 55.69%. On the other hand Kestra Medical Technologies has an analysts' consensus of $27.50 which suggests that it could grow by 22.11%. Given that Azenta has higher upside potential than Kestra Medical Technologies, analysts believe Azenta is more attractive than Kestra Medical Technologies.

Azenta has a beta of 1.638, which suggesting that the stock is 63.767% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Kestra Medical Technologies has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

Azenta has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Kestra Medical Technologies offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Azenta pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Kestra Medical Technologies pays out -1.99% of its earnings as a dividend.

Azenta quarterly revenues are $143.4M, which are larger than Kestra Medical Technologies quarterly revenues of --. Azenta's net income of -$40.5M is higher than Kestra Medical Technologies's net income of --. Notably, Azenta's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Kestra Medical Technologies's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Azenta is 2.03x versus 22.51x for Kestra Medical Technologies. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.