Fundamental analysis: Confluent, Inc. (CFLT)

Awarener score: 2.8

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 (Lacking), the business stability (unknown) and growth (unknown), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Bottom).

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.
Confluent, Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 3.0

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

Growth score: 1.0

Confluent, 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: 4.0

CFLT 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 last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
The company shows business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands in good shape compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.8

Confluent, Inc. usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak when measured against peer firms.
The company normally gets meagre proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a weak position compared to similar companies.
Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually insufficient. It ranks substantially worse 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

CFLT 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 largely investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is great 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 greatly enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a disappointment 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: 5.3

Confluent, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is mostly safe. It happens to be more than average in relation to peer companies.
The company has a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely irrelevant. It turns to be impressive in relation to similar firms.
A significant part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have almost as many claims on the company as shareholders. It remains mediocre against rival firms.
Most resources controlled are already cash or short-term investments, which is best for liquidity. It looks top tier when measured against rivals.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has abundant dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's impressive 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 top-notch 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 four months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be mediocre against peers.
On average pays suppliers before a month from the purchase. It ranks weak when measured against industry peers.
The company pays its suppliers roughly three months before charging its customers, so there's sufficient 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 excellent 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 in good shape 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: 2.7

Confluent, 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 lacking compared 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 somewhat worse 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 below average when measured against industry firms.
In the past twelve months, the company has greatly 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 plenty 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 well ranked 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 huge relationship. The stock price might rely more on expectations and resources controlled than on anything else. It looks a disappointment 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 significant 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 low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.1

Company at a glance: Confluent, Inc. (CFLT)

Sector, industry: Technology, Software—Infrastructure

Market Cap: 10.23 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.63 billions

Confluent, Inc. operates a data streaming platform in the United States and internationally. It offers Confluent Cloud, a managed cloud-native service for connecting and processing data; and Confluent Platform, an enterprise-grade self-managed software that connects and processes data in real-time with the foundational platform for data in motion. It also provides Kafka Connect that enables to build connectors to integrate Apache Kafka with other apps and data systems; ksqlDB, a database for stream processing applications; and stream governance, a solution that is designed for the intricacies of streaming data, which allows teams to expand usage of real-time data without bypassing requirements for risk management and regulatory compliance. In addition, it also offers training and professional services. The company was formerly known as Infinitem, Inc. and changed its name to Confluent, Inc. in September 2014. Confluent, Inc. was incorporated in 2014 and is headquartered in Mountain View, California.