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

---

Fundamental analysis: DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. (DV)

Awarener score: 4.8

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: 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.
• DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 8.2

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

Growth score: could not be analyzed

• DoubleVerify Holdings, 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.
• Profit before income tax growth was not estimated, on insufficient history. It was impossible to measure against rivals.
• Net income growth could not be estimated, and so it is unknown against peer companies.
• There was not enough input data to estimate EPS trend. It's been an impossibility to compare it with industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 7.0

• DV managed to pay little to no income taxes on profits made in the past years. It's been slightly better than peers.
• Research and development expenses consume some portion of revenues. It's below average when measured against 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: 6.8

• DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. usually gets good 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.
• There's usually some profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks more than average in relation to competitors.
• In the past, got very good 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 great when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.2

• DV usually uses a portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is rather normal. It stands great when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually replacing some proportion of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, saving part of the funds for something else, which is almost average 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 a slight improvement 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 close to average when compared to rivals.
• The company uses a large portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can probably be sustained for as long as business doesn't turn sour. It still looks below average when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.6

• DoubleVerify Holdings, 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 almost average when measured against 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.
• 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.
• Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks below average when measured against 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 more than enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is better than most similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on somewhat more than three months credit. It still ranks last-in-rank when measured against peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than five months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be worse than most peers.
• On average pays suppliers before a month since the purchase. It ranks almost average when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers four months or more before charging its customers, so there's significant money invested in working capital. It's a disappointment compared to similar companies.
• Net interest expenses consume a non-significant portion of usual business earnings, and are therefore extremely easily to bear. It stands well ranked against rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been very good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take less than two years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are modest 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 a very weak position compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is slightly low when yearly sales are considered, business volume should be increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.8

• DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. profits are really small compared to market valuation, market valuation doesn't rely on current earnings. It happens to be below average 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 lacking 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 somewhat better than similar companies.
• The company usually generates somewhat 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, the current valuation might be reasonable. It's still encouraging in relation to 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.
• 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 is huge, as profits were extremely low in relative terms. It ranks below average when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a very large relationship. The stock price might rely more on expectations and resources controlled than on anything else. It looks in a very weak position compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is really 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 worse than 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 in good shape compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.9

---

Awarener score: 4.8

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!