3 ms·
Interesting stats from their S-1 (http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1303652/000119312513138700/d469057ds1.htm http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/13
by benhamner 14y ago
Interesting stats from their S-1 (http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1303652/000119312513138700/d469057ds1.htm http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1303652/00011931251...):
- $127.7m 2012 revenue
- 749 full time employees at end of 2012
- 70% of revenue from product licenses; 30% from services
- 11,000 customer accounts
- No customer represented more than 5% of total revenue
- carterschonwald 14y agothats a really really durable robust company profile. Congrats to them.
- kiskis 14y agoI'm not in the knowledge to evaluate company performance, but is net income of $1.6mm on $127mm revenue counts a robust company? In the last 3 years they had a similar % for net income/revenue, their employee count is linear with their revenue.
- seivan 14y agoI am curious though, is 1.6mm out of 127 a bad thing or a good thing? My knowledge in this area is abysmal :) Honest question. 1.6m profit is a decent thing though after costs.
- mynegation 14y agoUsually company is compared with other vendors in the same industry. E.g. Qliktech (NASDAQ:QLIK) in 2012 had net income of ~3,839,000 on the revenue of ~388,537,000 which is a profit margin of 0.99% vs Tableau's 1.26%.
- carterschonwald 14y agoUnless we know what the spending is on, it's impossible to evaluate that. But good point. If the growth in spending is on sales side, then maybe so. If the growth in spending is tied to tech / product evolution and associated growth in market reach, it's a good thing probably. It's one of those things where you can't evaluate the area of the fractal problems. You could drill in more and more, but at the end of the day it's never obvious. Or at least the biz circumstances that are obviously good or bad are kinda rare. I think.