We assign a fundamental rating of 5 out of 10 to TEAM. TEAM was compared to 278 industry peers in the Software industry. TEAM scores quite bad on profitability, while its financial health is fine. Not spectacular, but in line with the averages. TEAM is not priced too expensively while it is growing strongly. Keep and eye on this one!

Quickly go to:

1. Profitability

2. Health

3. Growth

4. Valuation

5. Dividend

1. Profitability

1.1 Basic Checks

TEAM had positive earnings in the past year.
TEAM had a positive operating cash flow in the past year.
In the past 5 years TEAM always reported negative net income.
TEAM had a positive operating cash flow in each of the past 5 years.

1.2 Ratios

The Return On Assets of TEAM (-3.23%) is comparable to the rest of the industry.
With a Return On Equity value of -13.40%, TEAM perfoms like the industry average, outperforming 44.24% of the companies in the same industry.

		Industry Rank	Sector Rank
ROA	-3.23%
ROE	-13.4%
ROIC	N/A

ROA(3y)N/A

ROA(5y)N/A

ROE(3y)N/A

ROE(5y)N/A

ROIC(3y)N/A

ROIC(5y)N/A

1.3 Margins

TEAM's Gross Margin of 82.87% is amongst the best of the industry. TEAM outperforms 88.49% of its industry peers.
In the last couple of years the Gross Margin of TEAM has remained more or less at the same level.
TEAM does not have Profit Margin and Operating Margin available, so we won't be analyzing them here.

		Industry Rank	Sector Rank
OM	N/A
PM (TTM)	N/A
GM	82.87%

OM growth 3YN/A

OM growth 5YN/A

PM growth 3YN/A

PM growth 5YN/A

GM growth 3Y-0.4%

GM growth 5Y-0.12%

More info and screens

ROA

ROE

ROIC

Operating and Profit Margin

Show most profitable peers

2. Health

2.1 Basic Checks

TEAM does not have a ROIC to compare to the WACC, probably because it is not profitable.
There is no outstanding debt for TEAM. This means it has a Debt/Equity and Debt/FCF ratio of 0 and it is amongst the best of the sector and industry.

2.2 Solvency

TEAM has an Altman-Z score of 4.76. This indicates that TEAM is financially healthy and has little risk of bankruptcy at the moment.
TEAM has a better Altman-Z score (4.76) than 71.94% of its industry peers.
The Debt to FCF ratio of TEAM is 0.68, which is an excellent value as it means it would take TEAM, only 0.68 years of fcf income to pay off all of its debts.
Looking at the Debt to FCF ratio, with a value of 0.68, TEAM is in the better half of the industry, outperforming 76.98% of the companies in the same industry.
A Debt/Equity ratio of 0.72 indicates that TEAM is somewhat dependend on debt financing.
Looking at the Debt to Equity ratio, with a value of 0.72, TEAM is doing worse than 71.22% of the companies in the same industry.
Even though the debt/equity ratio score it not favorable for TEAM, it has very limited outstanding debt, so we won't put too much weight on the DE evaluation.

		Industry Rank	Sector Rank
Debt/Equity	0.72
Debt/FCF	0.68
Altman-Z	4.76

ROIC/WACCN/A

WACC11.61%

2.3 Liquidity

A Current Ratio of 1.26 indicates that TEAM should not have too much problems paying its short term obligations.
TEAM has a worse Current ratio (1.26) than 62.59% of its industry peers.
TEAM has a Quick Ratio of 1.26. This is a normal value and indicates that TEAM is financially healthy and should not expect problems in meeting its short term obligations.
TEAM has a worse Quick ratio (1.26) than 61.87% of its industry peers.

		Industry Rank	Sector Rank
Current Ratio	1.26
Quick Ratio	1.26

More info and screens

WACC

Debt/Equity

How to determine the health of a company

Altman-Z score

Show peers with great health

3. Growth

3.1 Past

TEAM shows a strong growth in Earnings Per Share. In the last year, the EPS has been growing by 29.51%, which is quite impressive.
The Earnings Per Share has been growing by 26.19% on average over the past years. This is a very strong growth
TEAM shows quite a strong growth in Revenue. In the last year, the Revenue has grown by 19.51%.
The Revenue has been growing by 26.43% on average over the past years. This is a very strong growth!

EPS 1Y (TTM)29.51%

EPS 3Y29.36%

EPS 5Y26.19%

EPS Q2Q%35.06%

Revenue 1Y (TTM)19.51%

Revenue growth 3Y23%

Revenue growth 5Y26.43%

Sales Q2Q%20.61%

3.2 Future

The Earnings Per Share is expected to grow by 22.81% on average over the next years. This is a very strong growth
TEAM is expected to show quite a strong growth in Revenue. In the coming years, the Revenue will grow by 17.45% yearly.

EPS Next Y34.47%

EPS Next 2Y24.67%

EPS Next 3Y23.23%

EPS Next 5Y22.81%

Revenue Next Year21.74%

Revenue Next 2Y20.05%

Revenue Next 3Y19.16%

Revenue Next 5Y17.45%

3.3 Evolution

When comparing the EPS growth rate of the last years to the growth rate of the upcoming years, we see that the growth is stable.
The estimated forward Revenue growth is still strong, although it is decreasing when compared to the stronger growth in the past years.

More info and screens

Find the best growth stocks

Show best growing peers

4. Valuation

4.1 Price/Earnings Ratio

A Price/Earnings ratio of 34.12 indicates a quite expensive valuation of TEAM.
The rest of the industry has a similar Price/Earnings ratio as TEAM.
When comparing the Price/Earnings ratio of TEAM to the average of the S&P500 Index (28.60), we can say TEAM is valued inline with the index average.
With a Price/Forward Earnings ratio of 23.56, TEAM is valued on the expensive side.
Based on the Price/Forward Earnings ratio, TEAM is valued a bit cheaper than 65.83% of the companies in the same industry.
TEAM's Price/Forward Earnings ratio indicates a similar valuation than the S&P500 average which is at 25.83.

		Industry Rank	Sector Rank
PE	34.12
Fwd PE	23.56

4.2 Price Multiples

Based on the Price/Free Cash Flow ratio, TEAM is valued a bit cheaper than the industry average as 74.46% of the companies are valued more expensively.

		Industry Rank	Sector Rank
P/FCF	24.36
EV/EBITDA	N/A

4.3 Compensation for Growth

TEAM's low PEG Ratio(NY), which compensates the Price/Earnings for growth, indicates a rather cheap valuation of the company.
TEAM's earnings are expected to grow with 23.23% in the coming years. This may justify a more expensive valuation.