Head to head
LightPath Technologies vs Amphenol
Side-by-side on the measures that matter, with a plain-English read. Full detail: LPTH · APH
LPTH
LightPath Technologies
10.40-4.32%
1-year price shape — +17% over the period
Quant Rating C · 55/100
vs
APH
Amphenol
87.55-1.21%
1-year price shape — +41% over the period
Quant Rating B · 79/100
1-year performance, rebased to 100
Amphenol edges it on the scoreable measures. Amphenol has the highest Quant Rating (79); Amphenol has done best over the past year (+41%); Amphenol pays the highest dividend yield.
| LPTH | APH | |
|---|---|---|
| Snapshot | ||
| Sector | Electronic Components | Electronic Components |
| Last price | 10.40 | 87.55 |
| Change today | -4.32% | -1.21% |
| 1-year return | +17.2% | +41.4% |
| Market cap | $728.38M | $215.90B |
| 52-week range | 5.83 – 18.94 | 58.82 – 89.93 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E (TTM) | -27.37 | 43.78 |
| P/E percentile, own 5-yr range | 6th | 84th |
| P/B | 4.87 | 13.94 |
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 0.52% |
| Profitability & growth | ||
| EPS (TTM) | -0.38 | 1.67 |
| Net profit (TTM) | $-26.61M | $4.12B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $71.72M | $29.01B |
| Revenue growth (YoY) | +73.3% | +55.0% |
| Gross margin | 36.0% | 38.5% |
| Operating margin | -6.2% | 27.7% |
| Net margin | -28.6% | 17.7% |
| Free cash flow (TTM) | $-16.49M | $4.71B |
| Ownership & sentiment | ||
| Institutional ownership | 82.6% | 97.1% |
| Insider activity (12mo) | 36 buy / 11 sell | 24 buy / 25 sell |
| Short interest (% of float) | 16.3% | 1.3% |
| Analyst consensus | 100% buy (4) | 91% buy / 9% hold (11) |
| Analyst price target | $16 (+50%) | $101 (+15%) |
| StockVane view | ||
| StockVane Quant Rating | C (55) | B (79) |
| Company | ||
| Employees | 425 | 170,000 |
| Founded | 1985 | 1932 |
▲ marks the more favourable stock(s) on measures with a clear direction (lower P/E, higher yield, higher Quant Rating, better 1-year return). Analyst consensus counts each covering institution once, at its most recent rating. Not a recommendation. Quant Rating method: Data & Methodology.