Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Solo Brands, Inc. (DTC)

Awarener score: 6.2


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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (unknown) and growth (unknown), 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: 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.
  • Solo Brands, Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 6.8

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

Growth score: 1.0

  • Solo Brands, Inc. has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare to competitors.
  • There is not sufficient data to estimate the operating income margin trend, which has been therefore unknown against comparable firms.
  • EBITDA growth is unknown due to insufficient inputs, which compares unknown against peer enterprises.
  • We were not able to provide an estimate for EBIT growth, because of lacking data. It turns to be not yet known in relation 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: 9.0

  • DTC managed to pay no income taxes on profits made in the past years, sometimes even got a credit. It's been slightly worse than peers.
  • The company does not report R&D expenses. It's meaningless to measure in relation to competitors.
  • We have insufficient data to estimate how effective is research and development effort. It stands unknown against rival companies.

Profitability score: 4.8

  • Solo Brands, Inc. usually gets hardly sufficient 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 close to average when compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually modest. It ranks similar 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: 3.3

  • DTC remains pending of analysis regarding capital expenditures, due to data unavailable. It stands encouraging 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 substantially worse 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 somewhat enlarges a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a slight improvement compared to peer enterprises.
  • We are not sure on the effectiveness of the company when repurchasing shares, as there were not enough numbers to crunch. It stands unidentified against rivals.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.6

  • Solo Brands, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be significant difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be last-in-rank when measured against 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 excellent in relation to similar firms.
  • Roughly a tenth of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have minor claims on the company, and financial position is safe. It remains slightly better than rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources might be only slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is risky. It looks last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and short-term receivables. It's lacking compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on less than a month credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a disappointment compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes a lot of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be bottom tier against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers before a month from the purchase. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers plenty of months before charging its customers, so there's a lot of money invested in working capital. It's a disappointment compared to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a portion of usual business earnings, but are bearable. It stands slightly worse than rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take less than three years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks below average when measured against 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 reasonable when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.6

  • Solo Brands, 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 a disappointment compared to peers.
  • There is insufficient information on the genuine funds generation capability showed in the past twelve months, which stands as an incognita in relation to similar companies.
  • Unfortunately, lack of enough yearly data impaired our ability to estimate the normal earnings power. It's still an unknown variable to measure 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 close to average when compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. It looks somewhat worse 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 not far from one-to-one 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 stock price is at or below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is really low, the stock may be selling a t a discount. Pay attention to the other key indicators for hints. The company remains somewhat better than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a little 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 very good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still excellent in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 4.9

DTC logos

Company at a glance: Solo Brands, Inc. (DTC)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Internet Retail

Market Cap: 0.43 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.52 billions

Solo Brands, Inc. operates a direct-to-consumer platform that offers outdoor lifestyle branded products in the United States. The company provides camp stoves under the Solo Stove Lite brand name; fire pits under the Solo Stove brand name; grills, cook tops, and tools; kayaks under the Oru brand name; paddle boards under the ISLE brand name; and storage solutions for fire pits, firewood, and other accessories. It also offers swim trunks, casual shorts, sport products, polos, shirts, and lounge products under the Chubbies brand name; consumables, such as color packs, starters, natural charcoal, and firewood products; and accessories comprising shelters, shields, roasting sticks, tools, paddles, and pumps under the Solo Stove, Oru, and ISLE brands. The company was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Grapevine, Texas.

Awarener score: 6.2


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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (unknown) and growth (unknown), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).