Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Axonics, Inc. (AXNX)

Awarener score: 4.7

Conclusion

The higher the Awarener score, the more bang you get for the buck. It measures how much genuine funds the company generates for the stock price paid (Lacking), the business stability (Bottom) and growth (Superb), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Poor).

Note: All scores range from 1 (worst) to 10 (best). Conclusions are updated daily with closing stock prices and new reported quarterly financial statements.

Revenue score: 5.5

  • Business has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been top tier when measured against peer companies.
  • Axonics, Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 2.2

  • AXNX profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very good. They stand slightly better than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be pauper. It's substantially worse when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually destitute. They remain in a very weak position compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be pauper in relation to total revenues. They're still worse than most similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually destitute considering total sales, and remain substantially worse when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be pauper when confronted to sales. Company stands substantially worse when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.3

  • Axonics, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been impressive in relation to competitors.
  • In recent years, the firm hasn't always been able to profit from operations, which has been bottom tier against comparable firms.
  • In past years, the company couldn't always turn a profit -available to repay debt and purchase properties-, which compares last-in-rank when measured against peer enterprises.
  • In the previous years, the firm couldn't always make a profit -before income taxes and interests on loans taken-. It turns to be a disappointment compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, at least once the company lost money -before income taxes-. It was bottom tier against rivals.
  • In the previous years, the firm had at least a total net loss, and last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • The company lost money at least once in the past years. It's been a disappointment compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 5.0

  • AXNX had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier against peers.
  • Research and development expenses consume quite a bit of revenues. It's below average when measured against competitors.
  • The company shows excellent business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands impressive in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 3.0

  • Axonics, Inc. usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets meagre proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain close to average when compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks almost average when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got meagre returns -on the tangible resources it controls-. This metric is usually related to the industry in which operates and combines profitability versus reinvestment needs. It's almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.4

  • AXNX on average doesn't generate genuine funds, so to buy or replace property, plants and equipment must either burn existing cash or increase debt. It stands almost average when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping its operating capabilities up to date, which is almost average when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
  • The company pays no dividend, so measuring its growth is meaningless. The company has behaved in an conservative way compared to similar firms.
  • As no dividends are paid, it is useless trying to estimate their sustainability in time. Sustainability looks not applicable in regard to comparable companies.
  • The company has heavily enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains lacking compared to peer enterprises.
  • Repurchase effectiveness metric is very complex. Run again in analytical mode if you're interested in a technical explanation. It stands in a very weak position compared to rivals.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.8

  • Axonics, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent some portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be some difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be weak when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. There're no liquidity concerns. It turns to be excellent in relation to similar firms.
  • Very few resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is very solid. Company could increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains well ranked against rival firms.
  • Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks weak when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has a lot of dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's excellent in relation to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has a lot of dollars in cash and equivalents, which is well ranked against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
  • Normally has more than six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a very weak position compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes plenty of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be mediocre against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks almost average when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers plenty of months before charging its customers, so there's a lot of money invested in working capital. It's in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Has usually been losing money on the business, so net interest expenses must be paid by increasing borrowings, which is unsustainable in the long run. The situation is very risky for both creditors and shareholders, profitability must increase. It stands bottom tier against rival firms.
  • Business has usually been operated at a loss. Unless prospects improve, the company is no position to decrease loans taken levels but by additional shareholders' funding. Profitability must improve. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are huge in relation to property, plant, and equipment required to operate. This metric is likely dependent on the industry the company operates in. Low property, plant, and equipment requirements, allows the company to keep more money to reward stockholders in the long run. It looks impressive in relation to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is slightly low when yearly sales are considered, business volume should be increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.1

  • Axonics, Inc. reported losses, so valuating it in relation to earnings is meaningless. It happens to be last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
  • Price-to-Tangible-Book-Value is a fairly complex metric. Run again in analytical mode if you're interested in a technical explanation. It remains in a weak position compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could generate, it reinvested in the business, which stands slightly better than similar companies.
  • In the past years the company hardly generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve enough to be in a better position to reward investors. It's still similar to industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has significantly enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. Future profits need to be high enough to justify the measure, as the pie of earnings will now be split among numerous more stockholders. It came up lacking compared to peer ventures.
  • The company has more cash than debt. It might be poised to increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks slightly better than similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation has been negative, as the company lost money. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a huge relationship. The stock price might rely more on expectations and resources controlled than on anything else. It looks in a very weak position compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is extremely high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains mediocre against peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost some money. It happens to be similar to industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a somewhat low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still rather normal in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 3.5


AXNX logos

Company at a glance: Axonics, Inc. (AXNX)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Medical Devices

Market Cap: 3.76 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.22 billions

Axonics, Inc., a medical technology company, engages in the development and commercialization of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) systems. The company's SNM systems are used to treat patients with overactive bladder, including urinary urge incontinence and urinary urgency frequency, as well as fecal incontinence and non-obstructive urinary retention. Its proprietary rechargeable SNM System (r-SNM) delivers mild electrical pulses to the targeted sacral nerve to restore normal communication to and from the brain to reduce the symptoms of bladder and bowel dysfunction. The company also offers Bulkamid, a urethral bulking agent to treat female stress urinary incontinence. It sells its products through a direct salesforce and distributors in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Nordic countries, and internationally. The company was formerly known as Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to Axonics, Inc. in March 2021. Axonics, Inc. was incorporated in 2012 and is based in Irvine, California.

Awarener score: 4.7

Conclusion

The higher the Awarener score, the more bang you get for the buck. It measures how much genuine funds the company generates for the stock price paid (Lacking), the business stability (Bottom) and growth (Superb), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Poor).