• Twitter
• Facebook
• Snapchat
• Pinterest
• LinkedIn
• Tumblr

---

Fundamental analysis: Couchbase, Inc. (BASE)

Awarener score: 3.1

Conclusion

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: a result could not be reached

• Business growth could not be estimated, due to not enough input data. It's been unavailable to compare with peer companies.
• Couchbase, Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 4.2

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

Growth score: 1.0

• Couchbase, Inc. has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare 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: 3.3

• BASE 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 substantially worse when measured against competitors.
• The company grows sparsely in relation to research and development efforts. It stands lacking compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.8

• Couchbase, Inc. usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets very poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
• There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks weak 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 weak when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.8

• BASE 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 weak when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually somewhat investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is more than average in relation to 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 significantly enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in a weak position 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: 5.6

• Couchbase, Inc. has no intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) according to accounting books, which is safest. It happens to be top tier when measured against peer companies.
• The company has roughly triple short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely unimportant. It turns to be in good shape compared 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 better than most rival firms.
• A substantial portion of resources controlled are already cash or short-term investments, which is better for liquidity. It looks top tier when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's in good shape compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is well ranked against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on somewhat more than three months credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
• On average pays suppliers before a month since the purchase. It ranks below average when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers roughly two months before charging its customers, so there's some money invested in working capital. It's in a 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 very good 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 rather normal in relation to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is quite good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still somewhat better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.1

• Couchbase, 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 rather normal in relation to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could get, it reinvested in the business, which stands mediocre against 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 has largely 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 a lot more stockholders. It came up a disappointment compared to peer ventures.
• The company has substantial more cash than debt. It might be poised to increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks better than most 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 large relationship. The stock price might rely more on expectations and resources controlled than on anything else. It looks in a weak position compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is really high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains somewhat worse than peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost significant money. It happens to be weak when measured against industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still in a weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.3

---

Awarener score: 3.1

Conclusion

Support us!

We are an independent project. No ads, no suscription, no registration required.

• Donate!