Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Ooma, Inc.
How Ooma, Inc. stacks up
OOMA · against 605 other Technology companies of similar size
Growth
85/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #49 of 606 · scores higher than 92% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score43 peers with a growth score of 80–89, including OOMA · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 85?
Weighted metrics compared with all Technology companies.Mainly thanks to its earnings per share growth, revenue growth and 3-year revenue growth, which are stronger than most Technology peers.
- faster revenue growth over three years: stronger than 67% of peers. 3-year revenue growth: 10.3% vs peer median 4.8%
- faster revenue growth over the last year: stronger than 71% of peers. Revenue growth: 17.2% vs peer median 8.5%
- Earnings per share turned from a loss to a profit. Earnings per share growth: — vs peer median 11.1%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = OOMA, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | OOMA | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 615 reported | 17.2% | 4.9% | 79% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 332 reported | Not reported | 5.5% | — | — | 33% |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 601 reported | 10.3% | 2.4% | 75% | 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 OOMA| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.5B CNY (≈$344M) | 99 | 65 | |
| 1 | 3.4B CNY (≈$482M) | 99 | 91 | |
| 3 | 67.2B JPY (≈$457M) | 98 | 92 | |
| 3 | 287M USD | 98 | 53 | |
| 5 | 6.1B CNY (≈$859M) | 97 | 56 | |
| 46 | 4.3B CNY (≈$597M) | 86 | 74 | |
| 46 |
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