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

---

Fundamental analysis: Commvault Systems, Inc. (CVLT)

Awarener score: 6.3

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: 6.0

• Business has been shrinking. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• Commvault Systems, Inc. business trend stability is excellent. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 5.5

• CVLT profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually excellent. They stand better than most rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be hardly sufficient. It's more than average in relation to competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually meagre. They remain a slight improvement compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be hardly sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still well ranked against similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually hardly sufficient considering total sales, and remain more than average in relation to rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be hardly sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands more than average in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.3

• Commvault Systems, Inc. profit growth -on goods and services sold- has been almost stagnant. It's been in a weak position 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: 4.0

• CVLT had to pay too much income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been worse than most peers.
• Research and development expenses consume a moderate portion of revenues. It's similar to competitors.
• The company grows very little in relation to research and development efforts. It stands in a very weak position compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 5.8

• Commvault Systems, Inc. usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves more than average in relation to peer firms.
• The company normally gets sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in good shape compared to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually modest. It ranks encouraging in relation to competitors.
• In the past, got 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 more than average in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.2

• CVLT usually uses a slight portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is light. It stands more than average in relation to rival firms.
• The company is usually replacing part of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping some funds for something else. It can't keep forever, which is weak 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 neither enlarges nor reduces the pool of investors, resulting in approximately the same mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains impressive in relation to peer enterprises.
• Repurchase effectiveness metric is very complex. Run again in analytical mode if you're interested in a technical explanation. It stands a slight improvement compared to rivals.
• The company uses somewhat more funds to reward investors than it can genuinely generate, so some part of them is paid out of existing cash or by borrowing money, both of which will eventually reach a limit. Either business somewhat improves, or rewards will probably not be sustained at this pace. It still looks below average when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.8

• Commvault Systems, 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 below average when measured against peer companies.
• The company has somewhat more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns might not be that important. It turns to be lacking compared to similar firms.
• Almost no resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is great. Company could significantly 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.
• Resources controlled can be quickly made into cash, which is very good for liquidity and risk. It looks encouraging in relation to rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has 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 almost another of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on somewhat more than three months credit. It still ranks substantially worse 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 during the first couple of weeks from the purchase. It ranks substantially worse 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.
• 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 earnings have usually been great when measured against loans taken. Debt might be repaid almost as soon as desired. It ranks more than average in relation to comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are huge 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 excellent in relation 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 better than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.6

• Commvault Systems, 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 a very weak position compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company generated some good free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands top-notch against similar companies.
• The company usually generates more than enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Surplus cash may be used to repay loans, to eventually buy new businesses, or to reward investors. Considering the financial position and stock price, at the current price the share might be interesting. It's still great when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has slightly rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up excellent in relation 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 somewhat better 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 high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks close to average when 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 worse than most peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a little money. It happens to be more than average in relation to industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a mediocre earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still a slight improvement compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.8

---

Awarener score: 6.3

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!