Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Cantaloupe, Inc. (CTLP)

Awarener score: 4.5

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 good) and growth (Average), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).

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: 7.0

  • Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been encouraging in relation to peer companies.
  • Cantaloupe, Inc. business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly better than rivals.

Margins score: 3.7

  • CTLP profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually hardly sufficient. They stand somewhat worse than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be very poor. It's last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very poor. They remain in a very 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 worse than most similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually meagre considering total sales, and remain substantially worse when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be meagre when confronted to sales. Company stands substantially worse when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.7

  • Cantaloupe, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a normal pace. It's been a slight improvement compared 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: 6.0

  • CTLP 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 very little portion of revenues. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • The company shows good business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands in good shape compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 3.2

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

Usage of Funds score: 3.0

  • CTLP 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 last-in-rank 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 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 usually enlarges quite a bit the pool of investors, 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: 5.9

  • Cantaloupe, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be similar to peer companies.
  • The company has more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns shouldn't be an issue. 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 well ranked against rival firms.
  • Controlled resources might be turned into cash and equivalents neither fast nor too slow. Liquidity and risk might be run-of-the-mill. It looks similar to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's lacking compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and equivalents, which is slightly better than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks almost average when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately somewhat more than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a very weak position compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than four months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be worse than most peers.
  • On average pays suppliers approximately four months or higher after the purchase. It ranks great when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers almost when charging its customers, so there's very little 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 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 close to average when compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is very good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.9

  • Cantaloupe, 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 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 substantially worse when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has 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 somewhat more stockholders. It came up in a very weak position 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 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 roughly two to one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks rather normal in relation 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 somewhat better than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost some 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 very weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.3


CTLP logos

Company at a glance: Cantaloupe, Inc. (CTLP)

Sector, industry: Technology, Information Technology Services

Market Cap: 0.36 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.22 billions

Cantaloupe, Inc., a digital payment and software services company, provides technology solutions for the unattended retail market. The company offers integrated solutions for payments processing, logistics, and back-office management. It also provides ePort, an integrated payment device that is deployed in self-service, unattended market applications, such as vending, amusement, arcade, commercial laundry, air/vacuum, car wash, and others, which facilitates digital payments; and integrated software services for payment devices in the field for the wireless transfer. The company serves vending machine, car wash, electric vehicle charging, amusement, commercial laundry, micro-market, kiosk, and entertainment companies. It has strategic partnership with Bakkt Holdings, LLC to bring a cashless experience for consumers to spend digital assets at unattended retail devices: and Castles Technology to introduce a next-generation cashless device solution. The company was formerly known as USA Technologies, Inc and changed its name to Cantaloupe, Inc. Cantaloupe Inc. was incorporated in 1992 and is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania.

Awarener score: 4.5

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 good) and growth (Average), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).