Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to NeuroOne Medical Technologies Corporation
How NeuroOne Medical Technologies Corporation stacks up
NMTC · against 1,216 other Healthcare companies
Growth
99/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #3 of 1,217 · scores higher than 99% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score128 peers with a growth score of 90–100, including NMTC · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 99?
Weighted metrics compared with all Healthcare companies.Mainly thanks to its 3-year revenue growth and revenue growth, which are stronger than most Healthcare peers.
- Earnings per share growth is not reported, so it is left out of the score.
- faster revenue growth over the last year: stronger than 97% of peers. Revenue growth: 163.5% vs peer median 6.1%
- faster revenue growth over three years: stronger than 99% of peers. 3-year revenue growth: 276.0% vs peer median 5.8%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = NMTC, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | NMTC | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 1,243 reported | 163.5% | 6.1% | 97% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 682 reported | Not reported | 9.7% | — | — | 33% |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 1,192 reported | 276.0% | 5.8% | 99% | 33% |
A metric that is not reported is left out of the score; the other weights are rescaled.
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around NMTC| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.1B EUR (≈$3.4B) | 100 | 100 | |
| 1 | 464M USD | 100 | 53 | |
| 3 | 8.9B HKD (≈$1.1B) | 99 | 61 | |
| 3 | 1.8B HKD (≈$224M) | 99 | 59 | |
| 3 | 7.2B TWD (≈$224M) | 99 | 41 | |
| 3 | 433M USD | 99 | 81 | |
| 3 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score