Fundamental analysis: Datadog, Inc. (DDOG)

Awarener score: 6.3

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

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: 10.0

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

Margins score: 5.0

DDOG profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually excellent. They stand better than most rival companies.
Business profit on sales tends to be meagre. It's encouraging 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 meagre in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat better than similar companies.
Profits -before income taxes- are usually hardly sufficient considering total sales, and remain encouraging in relation to rivals.
Total net profit tends to be meagre when confronted to sales. Company stands encouraging in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.1

Datadog, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an excellent 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: 4.0

DDOG 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 substantially worse when measured against competitors.
The company shows business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands a slight improvement compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 4.5

Datadog, Inc. usually gets low returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to peer firms.
The company normally gets low proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually modest. It ranks encouraging in relation 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 encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.0

DDOG usually uses a modest portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments isn't too high. It stands encouraging in relation to rival firms.
The company is usually investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve 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 significantly enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains lacking 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: 6.3

Datadog, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a modest 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 more than enough short-term resources to face short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are non-significant. It turns to be in good shape compared to similar firms.
Roughly a quarter of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have some claims on the company. It remains somewhat worse than rival firms.
A substantial portion of resources controlled are already cash or short-term investments, which is better for liquidity. It looks more than average in relation to rivals.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has abundant dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's in good shape compared to peer firms.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is well ranked against similar enterprises.
Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
On average, it takes higher than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly worse than peers.
On average pays suppliers two 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 close to average when 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 extremely low when measured against loans taken. Even severely cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than twenty years to repay the obligations. Additional stockholders' funding may be a quicker way, but at the cost of increasing the mouths to feed on the eventual pie of profits. It ranks substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.
Revenues are quite good 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 lacking compared to similar firms.
Resource exploitation is reasonable when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.5

Datadog, 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 weak position 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 slightly better 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 similar to industry firms.
In the past twelve months, the company has barely rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up excellent in relation 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 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 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 worse than most peer firms.
In the past twelve months, the operating business lost some money. It happens to be encouraging in relation to 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 a slight improvement compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.1

Company at a glance: Datadog, Inc. (DDOG)

Sector, industry: Technology, Software—Application

Market Cap: 31.79 billions

Revenues TTM: 1.79 billions

Datadog, Inc. provides monitoring and analytics platform for developers, information technology operations teams, and business users in the cloud in North America and internationally. The company's SaaS platform integrates and automates infrastructure monitoring, application performance monitoring, log management, and security monitoring to provide real-time observability of its customers technology stack. Its platform also provides user experience monitoring, network performance monitoring, cloud security, developer-focused observability, and incident management, as well as a range of shared features, such as dashboards, analytics, collaboration tools, and alerting capabilities. The company was incorporated in 2010 and is headquartered in New York, New York.