GRND Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Autodesk has a net margin of 27.63% compared to Grindr's net margin of 17.52%. Grindr's return on equity of -- beat Autodesk's return on equity of 51.52%.

Grindr has a consensus price target of $19.50, signalling upside risk potential of 11.43%. On the other hand Autodesk has an analysts' consensus of $327.01 which suggests that it could grow by 11.79%. Given that Autodesk has higher upside potential than Grindr, analysts believe Autodesk is more attractive than Grindr.

Grindr has a beta of 0.000, which suggesting that the stock is 100% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Autodesk has a beta of 1.422, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 42.199%.

Grindr has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Autodesk offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Grindr pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Autodesk pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Grindr quarterly revenues are $89.3M, which are smaller than Autodesk quarterly revenues of $1.6B. Grindr's net income of $24.7M is lower than Autodesk's net income of $275M. Notably, Grindr's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Autodesk's PE ratio is 58.04x. 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 Grindr is 9.68x versus 10.64x for Autodesk. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Agilysys has a net margin of 27.63% compared to Grindr's net margin of 2%. Grindr's return on equity of -- beat Agilysys's return on equity of 42.17%.

Grindr has a consensus price target of $19.50, signalling upside risk potential of 11.43%. On the other hand Agilysys has an analysts' consensus of $141.25 which suggests that it could grow by 8.53%. Given that Grindr has higher upside potential than Agilysys, analysts believe Grindr is more attractive than Agilysys.

Grindr has a beta of 0.000, which suggesting that the stock is 100% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Agilysys has a beta of 0.940, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 5.952%.

Grindr has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Agilysys offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Grindr pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Agilysys pays out 1.93% of its earnings as a dividend. Agilysys's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Grindr quarterly revenues are $89.3M, which are larger than Agilysys quarterly revenues of $68.3M. Grindr's net income of $24.7M is higher than Agilysys's net income of $1.4M. Notably, Grindr's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Agilysys's PE ratio is 37.08x. 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 Grindr is 9.68x versus 14.23x for Agilysys. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Inuvo has a net margin of 27.63% compared to Grindr's net margin of -9.14%. Grindr's return on equity of -- beat Inuvo's return on equity of -54%.

Grindr has a consensus price target of $19.50, signalling upside risk potential of 11.43%. On the other hand Inuvo has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could grow by 48.83%. Given that Inuvo has higher upside potential than Grindr, analysts believe Inuvo is more attractive than Grindr.

Grindr has a beta of 0.000, which suggesting that the stock is 100% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Inuvo has a beta of 0.937, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 6.269%.

Grindr has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Inuvo offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Grindr pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Inuvo pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Grindr quarterly revenues are $89.3M, which are larger than Inuvo quarterly revenues of $22.4M. Grindr's net income of $24.7M is higher than Inuvo's net income of -$2M. Notably, Grindr's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Inuvo'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 Grindr is 9.68x versus 1.13x for Inuvo. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Issuer Direct has a net margin of 27.63% compared to Grindr's net margin of -6.7%. Grindr's return on equity of -- beat Issuer Direct's return on equity of -3.74%.

Grindr has a consensus price target of $19.50, signalling upside risk potential of 11.43%. On the other hand Issuer Direct has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could grow by 43.65%. Given that Issuer Direct has higher upside potential than Grindr, analysts believe Issuer Direct is more attractive than Grindr.

Grindr has a beta of 0.000, which suggesting that the stock is 100% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Issuer Direct has a beta of 0.769, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 23.119%.

Grindr has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Issuer Direct offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Grindr pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Issuer Direct pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Grindr quarterly revenues are $89.3M, which are larger than Issuer Direct quarterly revenues of $7M. Grindr's net income of $24.7M is higher than Issuer Direct's net income of -$466K. Notably, Grindr's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Issuer Direct's PE ratio is 59.85x. 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 Grindr is 9.68x versus 1.19x for Issuer Direct. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.