Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: BioLife Solutions, Inc. (BLFS)

Awarener score: 4.9

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 (Very poor) and growth (Superb), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very 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: 6.0

  • Business has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been top tier when measured against peer companies.
  • BioLife Solutions, Inc. business varies frequently, ups and downs are normal. It's risky. It looks bottom tier against rivals.

Margins score: 5.0

  • BLFS 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 meagre. It's almost average when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually meagre. They remain close to average when compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be meagre in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat worse than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually meagre considering total sales, and remain almost average when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands similar to comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.1

  • BioLife Solutions, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an excellent 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: 5.7

  • BLFS 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 a low portion of revenues. It's below average when measured against competitors.
  • The company shows very good business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands excellent in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 5.0

  • BioLife Solutions, Inc. usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain close to average when compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually modest. It ranks similar to competitors.
  • In the past, got barely sufficient 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: 3.3

  • BLFS usually uses a very large portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is heavy. It stands almost average when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing most of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, and saving a little funds for something else, 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 cut back dividend payments. It could be traversing challenging times. The company has behaved a disappointment 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 in a very 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 rather normal in relation to rivals.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.7

  • BioLife Solutions, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be significant 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 more than enough short-term resources to face short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are non-significant. It turns to be close to average when compared to similar firms.
  • A very minor portion of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is solid. Company could increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains somewhat better than rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources might be only slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is risky. It looks last-in-rank 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 close to average when compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is slightly worse than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks almost average when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately four months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as rather normal in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than six months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be well ranked against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers after a month and a half from the purchase. It ranks weak when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers four months or more before charging its customers, so there's significant money invested in working capital. It's rather normal in relation 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 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 modest 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 rather normal in relation 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: 3.5

  • BioLife Solutions, 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 close to average when 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 somewhat worse than similar companies.
  • In the past years the company barely generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve to be in a better position to reward investors. It's still below average 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 more cash than debt. It might be poised to increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks slightly worse 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 very large relationship. The stock price might rely more on expectations and resources controlled than on anything else. It looks close to average when compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. 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 a somewhat low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.4


BLFS logos

Company at a glance: BioLife Solutions, Inc. (BLFS)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Medical Instruments & Supplies

Market Cap: 1.01 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.14 billions

BioLife Solutions, Inc. develops, manufactures, and supplies bioproduction tools and services for the cell and gene therapy industry in the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally. The company's products are used in the basic and applied research, and commercial manufacturing of biologic-based therapies. It offers proprietary biopreservation media products, including HypoThermosol FRS and CryoStor that are formulated to mitigate preservation-induced, delayed-onset cell damage and death; and the ThawSTAR line that includes automated vial and cryobag thawing products that control the heat and timing of the thawing process of biologic materials. The company also provides evo shipping containers that are cloud-connected passive storage and transport containers for temperature-sensitive biologics and pharmaceuticals; liquid nitrogen laboratory freezers, cryogenic equipment, and accessories; and biological and pharmaceutical storage services. It markets and sells its products directly, as well as through third party distributors. BioLife Solutions, Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in Bothell, Washington.

Awarener score: 4.9

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 (Very poor) and growth (Superb), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very poor).