UTI Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Lincoln Educational Services has a net margin of 9.6% compared to Universal Technical Institute's net margin of 3.46%. Universal Technical Institute's return on equity of 17.79% beat Lincoln Educational Services's return on equity of 5.98%.

Universal Technical Institute has a consensus price target of $26.60, signalling upside risk potential of 5.31%. On the other hand Lincoln Educational Services has an analysts' consensus of $20.00 which suggests that it could grow by 33.51%. Given that Lincoln Educational Services has higher upside potential than Universal Technical Institute, analysts believe Lincoln Educational Services is more attractive than Universal Technical Institute.

Universal Technical Institute has a beta of 1.453, which suggesting that the stock is 45.293% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Lincoln Educational Services has a beta of 1.429, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 42.941%.

Universal Technical Institute has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Lincoln Educational Services offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Universal Technical Institute pays 2.61% of its earnings as a dividend. Lincoln Educational Services pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Universal Technical Institute's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Universal Technical Institute quarterly revenues are $196.4M, which are larger than Lincoln Educational Services quarterly revenues of $114.4M. Universal Technical Institute's net income of $18.8M is higher than Lincoln Educational Services's net income of $4M. Notably, Universal Technical Institute's price-to-earnings ratio is 34.14x while Lincoln Educational Services's PE ratio is 46.81x. 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 Universal Technical Institute is 1.75x versus 1.09x for Lincoln Educational Services. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Grand Canyon Education has a net margin of 9.6% compared to Universal Technical Institute's net margin of 17.4%. Universal Technical Institute's return on equity of 17.79% beat Grand Canyon Education's return on equity of 30.82%.

Universal Technical Institute has a consensus price target of $26.60, signalling upside risk potential of 5.31%. On the other hand Grand Canyon Education has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could grow by 9.73%. Given that Grand Canyon Education has higher upside potential than Universal Technical Institute, analysts believe Grand Canyon Education is more attractive than Universal Technical Institute.

Universal Technical Institute has a beta of 1.453, which suggesting that the stock is 45.293% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Grand Canyon Education has a beta of 0.747, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 25.275%.

Universal Technical Institute has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Grand Canyon Education offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Universal Technical Institute pays 2.61% of its earnings as a dividend. Grand Canyon Education pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Universal Technical Institute's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Universal Technical Institute quarterly revenues are $196.4M, which are smaller than Grand Canyon Education quarterly revenues of $238.3M. Universal Technical Institute's net income of $18.8M is lower than Grand Canyon Education's net income of $41.5M. Notably, Universal Technical Institute's price-to-earnings ratio is 34.14x while Grand Canyon Education's PE ratio is 21.54x. 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 Universal Technical Institute is 1.75x versus 4.74x for Grand Canyon Education. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Mynd.ai has a net margin of 9.6% compared to Universal Technical Institute's net margin of --. Universal Technical Institute's return on equity of 17.79% beat Mynd.ai's return on equity of -68.39%.

Universal Technical Institute has a consensus price target of $26.60, signalling upside risk potential of 5.31%. On the other hand Mynd.ai has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Universal Technical Institute has higher upside potential than Mynd.ai, analysts believe Universal Technical Institute is more attractive than Mynd.ai.

Universal Technical Institute has a beta of 1.453, which suggesting that the stock is 45.293% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Mynd.ai has a beta of 1.340, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 33.993%.

Universal Technical Institute has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Mynd.ai offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $5.63 per share. Universal Technical Institute pays 2.61% of its earnings as a dividend. Mynd.ai pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Universal Technical Institute's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Universal Technical Institute quarterly revenues are $196.4M, which are larger than Mynd.ai quarterly revenues of --. Universal Technical Institute's net income of $18.8M is higher than Mynd.ai's net income of --. Notably, Universal Technical Institute's price-to-earnings ratio is 34.14x while Mynd.ai'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 Universal Technical Institute is 1.75x versus 0.23x for Mynd.ai. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Strategic Education has a net margin of 9.6% compared to Universal Technical Institute's net margin of 9.07%. Universal Technical Institute's return on equity of 17.79% beat Strategic Education's return on equity of 7.63%.

Universal Technical Institute has a consensus price target of $26.60, signalling upside risk potential of 5.31%. On the other hand Strategic Education has an analysts' consensus of $123.00 which suggests that it could grow by 32.2%. Given that Strategic Education has higher upside potential than Universal Technical Institute, analysts believe Strategic Education is more attractive than Universal Technical Institute.

Universal Technical Institute has a beta of 1.453, which suggesting that the stock is 45.293% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Strategic Education has a beta of 0.581, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 41.879%.

Universal Technical Institute has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Strategic Education offers a yield of 2.58% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.60 per share. Universal Technical Institute pays 2.61% of its earnings as a dividend. Strategic Education pays out 84.22% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Universal Technical Institute quarterly revenues are $196.4M, which are smaller than Strategic Education quarterly revenues of $306M. Universal Technical Institute's net income of $18.8M is lower than Strategic Education's net income of $27.7M. Notably, Universal Technical Institute's price-to-earnings ratio is 34.14x while Strategic Education's PE ratio is 17.72x. 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 Universal Technical Institute is 1.75x versus 1.85x for Strategic Education. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.