Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Castle Biosciences, Inc. (CSTL)

Awarener score: 4.3

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 (Poor), the business stability (unknown) and growth (Excellent), 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: 9.0

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

Margins score: 4.2

  • CSTL 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 almost average when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very poor. They remain close to average when 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 slightly worse than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually very poor considering total sales, and remain almost average when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be very poor when confronted to sales. Company stands almost average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.0

  • Castle Biosciences, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very good pace. It's been excellent 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: 4.3

  • CSTL 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 some portion of revenues. It's almost average 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: 4.0

  • Castle Biosciences, Inc. usually gets low returns on the resources it controls. It proves similar to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets low 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 lacking. It ranks similar to competitors.
  • In the past, got low 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 similar to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.2

  • CSTL 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 similar to rival firms.
  • The company is usually heavily investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is top tier 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 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: 6.3

  • Castle Biosciences, 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 similar to 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.
  • 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 better than most rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources can be made into cash reasonably quick, which is good for liquidity and risk. It looks more than average in relation to 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 top-notch against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately somewhat less than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as rather normal in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than four months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly better than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers approximately three months after the purchase. It ranks encouraging in relation to industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers roughly one month before charging its customers, so there's sparse money invested in working capital. It's in good shape 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 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 reasonable 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 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 mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.6

  • Castle Biosciences, 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 in the business or genuine fund generation might be challenging, which stands mediocre against similar companies.
  • The company usually consumes more funds than can genuinely generate. Business needs are meet by borrowing money or consuming preexistent cash, which can only keep up until a certain limit. Unless the company is driving business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. It's still weak when measured against 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.
  • 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 lacking compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is somewhat high. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains well ranked against 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 lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.6


CSTL logos

Company at a glance: Castle Biosciences, Inc. (CSTL)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Diagnostics & Research

Market Cap: 0.64 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.12 billions

Castle Biosciences, Inc., a commercial-stage diagnostics company, focuses to provide diagnostic and prognostic testing services for dermatological cancers. Its lead product is DecisionDx-Melanoma, a multi-gene expression profile (GEP) test to identify the risk of metastasis for patients diagnosed with invasive cutaneous melanoma. The company also offers DecisionDx-UM test, a proprietary GEP test that predicts the risk of metastasis for patients with uveal melanoma, a rare eye cancer; DecisionDx-SCC, a proprietary 40-gene expression profile test that uses an individual patient's tumor biology to predict individual risk of squamous cell carcinoma metastasis for patients with one or more risk factors; and DecisionDx DiffDx-Melanoma and myPath Melanoma, a proprietary GEP test to diagnose suspicious pigmented lesions. It offers test services through physicians and their patients. The company was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Friendswood, Texas.

Awarener score: 4.3

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