The P/E ratio measures how cheaply valued a company’s stock price is by dividing the current stock price to its earnings-per-share (EPS). It indicates the dollar amount an investor can expect to invest in a company to receive $1 of that company’s earnings. Cryoport P/E ratio is -5.94. it has increased by a third in comparison to the same period last year. this metric is one of the most popular because it easily summarizes the status of the company. however, in order to make an informed decision, more metrics should be analysed. Let’s dive into Cryoport’s P/E ratio
What is Cryoport P/E Ratio?
Cryoport’s P/E ratio is -5.94, which represents a 95.57% increase over the same period last year. their average P / E ratio is -58.5 and their 5-year average is -52.62.
What is Cryoport Net EPS?
Cryoport’s net earnings for the most recent quarter were -5.74$, which represents a 645.45% decrease from the same period last year.
Who are Cryoport Competitors?
Based on Jika.io AI model, Changan Minsheng APLL Logistics Co., YTO Express (International) Holdings, Andlauer Healthcare Group, CatchMark Timber Trust, Future Supply Chain Solutions, Pitney Bowes, Radiant Logistics, Logwin AG are considered to be Cryoport’s competitors because the companies operate within the same industry as Cryoport and are targeting the same customer base. in addition, competitors typically share a similar market capitalization as Cryoport.
Who is Cryoport’s Biggest competitor?
Cryoport’s biggest competitor is Changan Minsheng APLL Logistics Co. based on the AI model of Jika.io. it has a similar market capitalization to Cryoport within the industry, it dominates a similar share of the market as Cryoport, and it provides and markets very similar services.
What industry is Cryoport in?
Cryoport is part of the Integrated Freight & Logistics industry and the Industrials sector.
Cryoport vs Changan Minsheng APLL Logistics Co.
Market Cap: Cryoport’s Market Cap of 1684228992 is higher than Changan Minsheng APLL Logistics Co. Market Cap of 354920160.
Average Volume: Cryoport’s Average Volume of 514878.0 is higher than Changan Minsheng APLL Logistics Co. Average Volume of 11033.0.
Beta: Cryoport’s Beta of 1.28 is higher than Changan Minsheng APLL Logistics Co. Beta of 0.63.
Revenue: Cryoport’s Revenue of 222.608M is lower than Changan Minsheng APLL Logistics Co. Revenue of 6.021B.
Net Income: Cryoport’s Net Income of -275.528M is lower than Changan Minsheng APLL Logistics Co. Net Income of 29.148M.
Gross Profit: Cryoport’s Gross Profit of 96.577M is higher than Changan Minsheng APLL Logistics Co. Gross Profit of 324.922M.
Ebitda: Cryoport’s Ebitda of -248.906M is lower than Changan Minsheng APLL Logistics Co. Ebitda of 196.285M.
P/E Ratio: Cryoport’s P/E Ratio of -5.94 is lower than Changan Minsheng APLL Logistics Co. P/E Ratio of 2.31.
P/S Ratio: Cryoport’s P/S Ratio of 7.64 is higher than Changan Minsheng APLL Logistics Co. P/S Ratio of 0.09.
P/B Ratio: Cryoport’s P/B Ratio of 2.78 is higher than Changan Minsheng APLL Logistics Co. P/B Ratio of 0.18.
P/FCF Ratio: Cryoport’s P/FCF Ratio of -142.23 is higher than Changan Minsheng APLL Logistics Co. P/FCF Ratio of -1.94.
ROE: Cryoport’s ROE of -0.45 is lower than Changan Minsheng APLL Logistics Co. ROE of 0.12.
ROA: Cryoport’s ROA of -0.26 is lower than Changan Minsheng APLL Logistics Co. ROA of 0.06.
Return On Capital Employed: Cryoport’s Return On Capital Employed of -0.02 is lower than Changan Minsheng APLL Logistics Co. Return On Capital Employed of 0.12.
Gross Profit Margin: Cryoport’s Gross Profit Margin of 0.43 is higher than Changan Minsheng APLL Logistics Co. Gross Profit Margin of 0.12.
Cryoport vs YTO Express (International) Holdings
Market Cap: Cryoport’s Market Cap of 1684228992 is higher than YTO Express (International) Holdings Market Cap of 1092493952.
Average Volume: Cryoport’s Average Volume of 514878.0 is higher than YTO Express (International) Holdings Average Volume of 272847.0.
Beta: Cryoport’s Beta of 1.28 is higher than YTO Express (International) Holdings Beta of 0.01.
Revenue: Cryoport’s Revenue of 222.608M is lower than YTO Express (International) Holdings Revenue of 7.556B.
Net Income: Cryoport’s Net Income of -275.528M is lower than YTO Express (International) Holdings Net Income of 273.377M.
Gross Profit: Cryoport’s Gross Profit of 96.577M is higher than YTO Express (International) Holdings Gross Profit of 792.841M.
Ebitda: Cryoport’s Ebitda of -248.906M is lower than YTO Express (International) Holdings Ebitda of 323.229M.
P/B Ratio: Cryoport’s P/B Ratio of 2.78 is higher than YTO Express (International) Holdings P/B Ratio of 0.99.
P/FCF Ratio: Cryoport’s P/FCF Ratio of -142.23 is lower than YTO Express (International) Holdings P/FCF Ratio of 5.98.
ROE: Cryoport’s ROE of -0.45 is lower than YTO Express (International) Holdings ROE of 0.0.
ROA: Cryoport’s ROA of -0.26 is lower than YTO Express (International) Holdings ROA of 0.0.
Return On Capital Employed: Cryoport’s Return On Capital Employed of -0.02 is lower than YTO Express (International) Holdings Return On Capital Employed of 0.0.
Assets (Total): Cryoport’s Assets (Total) of 1.113B is lower than YTO Express (International) Holdings Assets (Total) of 2.309B.
Debt (Total): Cryoport’s Debt (Total) of 427.055M is higher than YTO Express (International) Holdings Debt (Total) of 165.08M.
Shareholders Equity: Cryoport’s Shareholders Equity of 641.828M is higher than YTO Express (International) Holdings Shareholders Equity of 1.102B.
Cryoport vs Andlauer Healthcare Group
Market Cap: Cryoport’s Market Cap of 1684228992 is lower than Andlauer Healthcare Group Market Cap of 1845274880.
Average Volume: Cryoport’s Average Volume of 514878.0 is higher than Andlauer Healthcare Group Average Volume of 18214.0.
Beta: Cryoport’s Beta of 1.28 is higher than Andlauer Healthcare Group Beta of 0.48.
Revenue: Cryoport’s Revenue of 222.608M is lower than Andlauer Healthcare Group Revenue of 440.115M.
Net Income: Cryoport’s Net Income of -275.528M is lower than Andlauer Healthcare Group Net Income of 89.954M.
Gross Profit: Cryoport’s Gross Profit of 96.577M is higher than Andlauer Healthcare Group Gross Profit of 110.754M.
Ebitda: Cryoport’s Ebitda of -248.906M is lower than Andlauer Healthcare Group Ebitda of 157.375M.
P/E Ratio: Cryoport’s P/E Ratio of -5.94 is lower than Andlauer Healthcare Group P/E Ratio of 18.85.
P/S Ratio: Cryoport’s P/S Ratio of 7.64 is higher than Andlauer Healthcare Group P/S Ratio of 3.74.
P/B Ratio: Cryoport’s P/B Ratio of 2.78 is lower than Andlauer Healthcare Group P/B Ratio of 4.96.
P/FCF Ratio: Cryoport’s P/FCF Ratio of -142.23 is lower than Andlauer Healthcare Group P/FCF Ratio of 21.64.
ROE: Cryoport’s ROE of -0.45 is lower than Andlauer Healthcare Group ROE of 0.37.
ROA: Cryoport’s ROA of -0.26 is lower than Andlauer Healthcare Group ROA of 0.14.
Return On Capital Employed: Cryoport’s Return On Capital Employed of -0.02 is lower than Andlauer Healthcare Group Return On Capital Employed of 0.14.
Gross Profit Margin: Cryoport’s Gross Profit Margin of 0.43 is higher than Andlauer Healthcare Group Gross Profit Margin of 0.29.
Assets (Total): Cryoport’s Assets (Total) of 1.113B is lower than Andlauer Healthcare Group Assets (Total) of 644.169M.
Debt (Total): Cryoport’s Debt (Total) of 427.055M is higher than Andlauer Healthcare Group Debt (Total) of 187.251M.
Cryoport vs CatchMark Timber Trust
Market Cap: Cryoport’s Market Cap of 1684228992 is higher than CatchMark Timber Trust Market Cap of 502071456.
Average Volume: Cryoport’s Average Volume of 514878.0 is lower than CatchMark Timber Trust Average Volume of 542020.0.
Beta: Cryoport’s Beta of 1.28 is higher than CatchMark Timber Trust Beta of 1.08.
Revenue: Cryoport’s Revenue of 222.608M is higher than CatchMark Timber Trust Revenue of 102.161M.
Net Income: Cryoport’s Net Income of -275.528M is lower than CatchMark Timber Trust Net Income of 58.262M.
Gross Profit: Cryoport’s Gross Profit of 96.577M is higher than CatchMark Timber Trust Gross Profit of 62.325M.
Ebitda: Cryoport’s Ebitda of -248.906M is lower than CatchMark Timber Trust Ebitda of 71.769M.
P/E Ratio: Cryoport’s P/E Ratio of -5.94 is lower than CatchMark Timber Trust P/E Ratio of 7.96.
P/S Ratio: Cryoport’s P/S Ratio of 7.64 is higher than CatchMark Timber Trust P/S Ratio of 4.87.
P/B Ratio: Cryoport’s P/B Ratio of 2.78 is higher than CatchMark Timber Trust P/B Ratio of 2.48.
P/FCF Ratio: Cryoport’s P/FCF Ratio of -142.23 is lower than CatchMark Timber Trust P/FCF Ratio of 11.51.
ROE: Cryoport’s ROE of -0.45 is lower than CatchMark Timber Trust ROE of 0.38.
ROA: Cryoport’s ROA of -0.26 is lower than CatchMark Timber Trust ROA of 0.12.
Return On Capital Employed: Cryoport’s Return On Capital Employed of -0.02 is lower than CatchMark Timber Trust Return On Capital Employed of 0.03.
Gross Profit Margin: Cryoport’s Gross Profit Margin of 0.43 is lower than CatchMark Timber Trust Gross Profit Margin of 0.59.
Assets (Total): Cryoport’s Assets (Total) of 1.113B is lower than CatchMark Timber Trust Assets (Total) of 507.31M.
Debt (Total): Cryoport’s Debt (Total) of 427.055M is higher than CatchMark Timber Trust Debt (Total) of 300.954M.
About Cryoport
Cryoport, Inc., a life sciences services company, provides temperature-controlled logistics solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific. the company offers Cryoportal, a cloud-based logistics management platform that supports the management of shipments, including order entry, document preparation, customs documentation, courier management, real-time shipment tracking and monitoring, issue resolution and regulatory compliance requirements; and CryoPort Express Shippers, which is used to ensure that the stability of shipped biologic commodities is maintained throughout the shipping cycle. it also provides information dashboards and validation documentation for shipments through data collected by SmartPak Condition Monitoring System and vacuum insulated aluminum dewars and cryogenic freezer systems. in addition, the company provides storage and maintenance of biological specimens, storage, monitoring, tracking, receipt and delivery of samples, transport of frozen biological specimens to and from customers, and management of incoming and outgoing biological specimens, and provides logistics support and management, and short-term logistics and engineering consulting services. it serves the biopharmaceutical/pharmaceutical, animal health and human reproductive medicine markets. the company was founded in 1999 and is based in Brentwood, Tennessee.
