KMTS Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Azenta has a net margin of -- compared to Kestra Medical Technologies's net margin of -9.04%. Kestra Medical Technologies's return on equity of -- beat Azenta's return on equity of -7.97%.

Kestra Medical Technologies has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Azenta has an analysts' consensus of $53.25 which suggests that it could grow by 53.86%. Given that Azenta has higher upside potential than Kestra Medical Technologies, analysts believe Azenta is more attractive than Kestra Medical Technologies.

Kestra Medical Technologies has a beta of 0.000, which suggesting that the stock is 100% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Azenta has a beta of 1.521, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 52.14%.

Kestra Medical Technologies has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Azenta offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Kestra Medical Technologies pays -1.99% of its earnings as a dividend. Azenta pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Kestra Medical Technologies quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Azenta quarterly revenues of $147.5M. Kestra Medical Technologies's net income of -- is lower than Azenta's net income of -$13.3M. Notably, Kestra Medical Technologies's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Azenta's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Kestra Medical Technologies is 23.42x versus 2.69x for Azenta. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Bionano Genomics has a net margin of -- compared to Kestra Medical Technologies's net margin of -728.57%. Kestra Medical Technologies's return on equity of -- beat Bionano Genomics's return on equity of -158.95%.

Kestra Medical Technologies has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Bionano Genomics has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could grow by 1968.96%. Given that Bionano Genomics has higher upside potential than Kestra Medical Technologies, analysts believe Bionano Genomics is more attractive than Kestra Medical Technologies.

Kestra Medical Technologies has a beta of 0.000, which suggesting that the stock is 100% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Bionano Genomics has a beta of 2.247, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 124.652%.

Kestra Medical Technologies has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Bionano Genomics offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Kestra Medical Technologies pays -1.99% of its earnings as a dividend. Bionano Genomics pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Kestra Medical Technologies quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Bionano Genomics quarterly revenues of $6.1M. Kestra Medical Technologies's net income of -- is lower than Bionano Genomics's net income of -$44.2M. Notably, Kestra Medical Technologies's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Bionano Genomics's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Kestra Medical Technologies is 23.42x versus 0.07x for Bionano Genomics. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Bruker has a net margin of -- compared to Kestra Medical Technologies's net margin of 1.4%. Kestra Medical Technologies's return on equity of -- beat Bruker's return on equity of 6.78%.

Kestra Medical Technologies has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Bruker has an analysts' consensus of $68.42 which suggests that it could grow by 62.59%. Given that Bruker has higher upside potential than Kestra Medical Technologies, analysts believe Bruker is more attractive than Kestra Medical Technologies.

Kestra Medical Technologies has a beta of 0.000, which suggesting that the stock is 100% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Bruker has a beta of 1.184, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 18.406%.

Kestra Medical Technologies has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Bruker offers a yield of 0.48% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.05 per share. Kestra Medical Technologies pays -1.99% of its earnings as a dividend. Bruker pays out 26.7% of its earnings as a dividend. Bruker's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Kestra Medical Technologies quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Bruker quarterly revenues of $979.6M. Kestra Medical Technologies's net income of -- is lower than Bruker's net income of $13.7M. Notably, Kestra Medical Technologies's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Bruker's PE ratio is 55.37x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Kestra Medical Technologies is 23.42x versus 1.87x for Bruker. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Harvard Bioscience has a net margin of -- compared to Kestra Medical Technologies's net margin of 0.07%. Kestra Medical Technologies's return on equity of -- beat Harvard Bioscience's return on equity of -18.36%.

Kestra Medical Technologies has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Harvard Bioscience has an analysts' consensus of $3.75 which suggests that it could grow by 514.75%. Given that Harvard Bioscience has higher upside potential than Kestra Medical Technologies, analysts believe Harvard Bioscience is more attractive than Kestra Medical Technologies.

Kestra Medical Technologies has a beta of 0.000, which suggesting that the stock is 100% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Harvard Bioscience has a beta of 1.464, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 46.371%.

Kestra Medical Technologies has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Harvard Bioscience offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Kestra Medical Technologies pays -1.99% of its earnings as a dividend. Harvard Bioscience pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Kestra Medical Technologies quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Harvard Bioscience quarterly revenues of $24.6M. Kestra Medical Technologies's net income of -- is lower than Harvard Bioscience's net income of $18K. Notably, Kestra Medical Technologies's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Harvard Bioscience's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Kestra Medical Technologies is 23.42x versus 0.28x for Harvard Bioscience. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.