VerticalScope (FORA) Competitors

VerticalScope (TSE:FORA) and Neo Performance Materials (TSE:NEO) are both small-cap communication services companies, but which is the better business? We will compare the two businesses based on the strength of their valuation, earnings, profitability, community ranking, dividends, risk, institutional ownership, media sentiment and analyst recommendations.

Does the MarketBeat Community prefer FORA or NEO?

VerticalScope received 13 more outperform votes than Neo Performance Materials when rated by MarketBeat users. Likewise, 42.86% of users gave VerticalScope an outperform vote while only 38.64% of users gave Neo Performance Materials an outperform vote.

Company	Underperform	Outperform
VerticalScope	Outperform Votes 30 42.86%	Underperform Votes 40 57.14%
Neo Performance Materials	Outperform Votes 17 38.64%	Underperform Votes 27 61.36%

Does the media refer more to FORA or NEO?

In the previous week, Neo Performance Materials had 2 more articles in the media than VerticalScope. MarketBeat recorded 4 mentions for Neo Performance Materials and 2 mentions for VerticalScope. Neo Performance Materials' average media sentiment score of 0.00 beat VerticalScope's score of -0.08 indicating that Neo Performance Materials is being referred to more favorably in the news media.

Company	Very Positive	Positive	Neutral	Negative	Very Negative	Overall Sentiment
VerticalScope	0 Very Positive mention(s)	0 Positive mention(s)	1 Neutral mention(s)	0 Negative mention(s)	0 Very Negative mention(s)	Neutral
Neo Performance Materials	0 Very Positive mention(s)	0 Positive mention(s)	4 Neutral mention(s)	0 Negative mention(s)	0 Very Negative mention(s)	Neutral

Which has more volatility & risk, FORA or NEO?

VerticalScope has a beta of -0.02, suggesting that its share price is 102% less volatile than the S&P 500. Comparatively, Neo Performance Materials has a beta of 1.38, suggesting that its share price is 38% more volatile than the S&P 500.

Do institutionals & insiders hold more shares of FORA or NEO?

7.2% of VerticalScope shares are held by institutional investors. Comparatively, 22.5% of Neo Performance Materials shares are held by institutional investors. 37.1% of VerticalScope shares are held by insiders. Comparatively, 22.4% of Neo Performance Materials shares are held by insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that hedge funds, large money managers and endowments believe a company will outperform the market over the long term.

Do analysts prefer FORA or NEO?

VerticalScope currently has a consensus price target of C$12.10, suggesting a potential upside of 159.10%. Neo Performance Materials has a consensus price target of C$13.67, suggesting a potential upside of 19.15%. Given VerticalScope's higher possible upside, equities analysts plainly believe VerticalScope is more favorable than Neo Performance Materials.

Company	Sell Ratings	Hold Ratings	Buy Ratings	Strong Buy Ratings	Rating Score
VerticalScope	0 Sell rating(s)	2 Hold rating(s)	4 Buy rating(s)	0 Strong Buy rating(s)	2.67
Neo Performance Materials	0 Sell rating(s)	0 Hold rating(s)	2 Buy rating(s)	0 Strong Buy rating(s)	3.00

Is FORA or NEO more profitable?

VerticalScope has a net margin of 4.06% compared to Neo Performance Materials' net margin of -0.48%. VerticalScope's return on equity of 3.38% beat Neo Performance Materials' return on equity.

Company	Net Margins	Return on Equity	Return on Assets
VerticalScope	4.06%	3.38%	2.90%
Neo Performance Materials	-0.48%	-0.53%	1.87%

Which has stronger earnings & valuation, FORA or NEO?

VerticalScope has higher earnings, but lower revenue than Neo Performance Materials. Neo Performance Materials is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than VerticalScope, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

Company	Gross Revenue	Price/Sales Ratio	Net Income	Earnings Per Share	Price/Earnings Ratio
VerticalScope	C$49.94M	1.47	C$2.02M	C$0.18	26.29
Neo Performance Materials	C$324.14M	1.04	-C$1.56M	-C$0.08	-150.64

Summary

VerticalScope beats Neo Performance Materials on 12 of the 18 factors compared between the two stocks.