Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Azenta, Inc. (AZTA)

Awarener score: 5.8

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 (Average), the business stability (Poor) and growth (Modest), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Average).

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: 4.0

  • Business growth has been almost stagnant. It's been almost average when measured against peer companies.
  • Azenta, Inc. business varies, ups and downs are rather normal. Risk is sufficient. It looks bottom tier against rivals.

Margins score: 6.8

  • AZTA profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually sufficient. They stand mediocre against rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be hardly sufficient. It's almost average when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very good. They remain excellent in relation to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be very good in relation to total revenues. They're still well ranked against similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually hardly sufficient considering total sales, and remain almost average when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be excellent when confronted to sales. Company stands great when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.6

  • Azenta, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a low pace. It's been rather normal 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: 8.3

  • AZTA managed to get a credit on income taxes in the past years, even though it earned money. It's been top-notch against peers.
  • Research and development expenses consume a sparse portion of revenues. It's similar to competitors.
  • The company shows business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands rather normal in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 8.5

  • Azenta, Inc. usually gets excellent returns on the resources it controls. It proves more than average in relation to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets very good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually abundant profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks more than average in relation to competitors.
  • In the past, got excellent 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 great when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.6

  • AZTA 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 great 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.
  • In recent years, has greatly cut back dividend payments. It could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved in a very weak position 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 somewhat enlarges a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains rather normal in relation to peer enterprises.
  • Repurchase effectiveness metric is very complex. Run again in analytical mode if you're interested in a technical explanation. It stands a disappointment compared to rivals.
  • The company generates very few genuine funds. Investor rewards must be paid burning existing cash or by borrowing money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, stockholder compensation could be at risk. It still looks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.6

  • Azenta, 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 almost average 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 in good shape compared to similar firms.
  • Almost no resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is great. Company could significantly increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains better than most rival firms.
  • Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks almost average 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 better than most similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on somewhat more than three months credit. It still ranks last-in-rank when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately five months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as rather normal in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes a lot of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be worse than most peers.
  • On average pays suppliers longer than two months after the purchase. It ranks encouraging in relation to industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers six months or more before charging its customers, so there's abundant money invested in working capital. It's in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Company earns net interest income on its investments and therefore is in a quite comfortable financial position. It stands top-notch against rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been great when measured against loans taken. Debt might be repaid almost as soon as desired. It ranks great when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are somewhat low in relation to property, plant, and equipment required to operate. This metric is likely dependent on the industry the company operates in. The more property, plant, and equipment used, the more the company must reinvest to fight obsolescence, which usually means less available funds for the shareholders in the long run. It looks lacking compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be significantly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.8

  • Azenta, 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 good shape compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company consumed funds. Either it reinvested significantly in the business or genuine fund generation might be struggling, which stands worse than most 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 weak when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company hasn't rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up rather normal in relation to peer ventures.
  • This company is a cash hoarder. It might be well poised to substantially increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks top-notch against 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 very high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks close to average when compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be more than reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains better than most peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost some money. It happens to be below average when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown an excellent earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Further analysis is recommended, as the stock might currently be undervalued. It's still impressive in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 5.3


AZTA logos

Company at a glance: Azenta, Inc. (AZTA)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Medical Instruments & Supplies

Market Cap: 2.78 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.59 billions

Azenta, Inc. provides life science sample exploration and management solutions for the life sciences market in North America, Europe, China, the Asia Pacific, and internationally. The company operates through two reportable segments, Life Sciences Products and Life Sciences Services. The Life Sciences Products segment offers automated cold sample management systems for compound and biological sample storage; equipment for sample preparation and handling; consumables; and instruments that help customers in managing samples throughout their research discovery and development workflows. The Life Sciences Services segment provides comprehensive sample management programs, integrated cold chain solutions, informatics, and sample-based laboratory services to advance scientific research and support drug development. This segment's services include sample storage, genomic sequencing, gene synthesis, laboratory processing, laboratory analysis, biospecimen procurement, and other support services. It serves a range of life science customers, including pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, biorepositories, and research institutes. The company was formerly known as Brooks Automation, Inc. and changed its name to Azenta, Inc. in December 2021. Azenta, Inc. was founded in 1978 and is headquartered in Chelmsford, Massachusetts.

Awarener score: 5.8

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 (Average), the business stability (Poor) and growth (Modest), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Average).