Shell Companies
Compare Stocks
3 / 10Stock Comparison
NOEMU vs NRGV vs CCRN
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Renewable Utilities
Medical - Care Facilities
NOEMU vs NRGV vs CCRN — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Shell Companies | Renewable Utilities | Medical - Care Facilities |
| Market Cap | $89M | $716M | $423M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $217M | $761M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $1M | $-115M | $-99M |
| Gross Margin | — | 22.1% | 18.2% |
| Operating Margin | — | -35.8% | -0.9% |
| Forward P/E | 9999.0x | — | 156.2x |
| Total Debt | $12K | $95M | $2M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $953K | $58M | $109M |
NOEMU vs NRGV vs CCRN — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Nov 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| CO2 Energy Transiti… (NOEMU) | 100 | 118.5 | +18.5% |
| Energy Vault Holdin… (NRGV) | 100 | 160.2 | +60.2% |
| Cross Country Healt… (CCRN) | 100 | 87.4 | -12.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NOEMU vs NRGV vs CCRN
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
NOEMU has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in long-term compounding.
- 6.1% 10Y total return vs CCRN's -10.5%
- 0.4% margin vs NRGV's -53.0%
- 1.8% ROA vs NRGV's -40.3%, ROIC -0.5% vs -49.5%
NRGV is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 340.9%, EPS growth 28.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 11.8%
- 340.9% revenue growth vs CCRN's -21.6%
- +447.1% vs CCRN's -5.4%
CCRN is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.78
- Lower volatility, beta 0.78, Low D/E 0.7%, current ratio 3.78x
- Beta 0.78, current ratio 3.78x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 340.9% revenue growth vs CCRN's -21.6% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 0.4% margin vs NRGV's -53.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.78 vs NRGV's 3.08, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 3 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +447.1% vs CCRN's -5.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 1.8% ROA vs NRGV's -40.3%, ROIC -0.5% vs -49.5% |
NOEMU vs NRGV vs CCRN — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
NOEMU vs NRGV vs CCRN — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 3 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
NOEMU leads in 2 of 6 categories
CCRN leads 1 • NRGV leads 1 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — NRGV and CCRN each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CCRN and NOEMU operate at a comparable scale, with $761M and $0 in trailing revenue. CCRN is the more profitable business, keeping -13.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to NRGV's -53.0%. On growth, NRGV holds the edge at +156.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $217M | $761M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $788,698 | -$72M | $9M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $1M | -$115M | -$99M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$900,105 | -$98M | $41M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +22.1% | +18.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | -35.8% | -0.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | -53.0% | -13.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | -45.2% | +5.4% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +156.4% | -100.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -42.9% | -6.0% |
Valuation Metrics
CCRN leads this category, winning 2 of 4 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
On an enterprise value basis, CCRN's 23.7x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than NOEMU's 1354.2x.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $89M | $716M | $423M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $88M | $752M | $317M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 9999.00x | -6.37x | -4.47x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 156.16x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 1354.23x | — | 23.75x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 3.52x | 0.40x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.30x | 7.50x | 1.31x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 10.55x |
Profitability & Efficiency
NOEMU leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
NOEMU delivers a 1.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $2 in annual profit, vs $-147 for NRGV. NOEMU carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to NRGV's 1.07x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CCRN scores 6/9 vs NRGV's 4/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +1.9% | -146.8% | -27.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.8% | -40.3% | -19.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -0.5% | -49.5% | -0.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -0.7% | -53.7% | -0.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 4 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.00x | 1.07x | 0.01x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$941,339 | $36M | -$106M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $953,069 | $58M | $109M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $11,730 | $95M | $2M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 156.21x | -10.33x | -1.39x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
NRGV leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in NOEMU five years ago would be worth $10,611 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $4,233 for NRGV. Over the past 12 months, NRGV leads with a +447.1% total return vs CCRN's -5.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors NRGV at 34.0% vs CCRN's -17.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -5.1% | -15.3% | +62.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +4.5% | +447.1% | -5.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +6.1% | +140.7% | -44.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +6.1% | -57.7% | -22.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +6.1% | -57.1% | -10.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +2.0% | +34.0% | -17.7% |
Risk & Volatility
NOEMU leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
NOEMU is the less volatile stock with a -0.04 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than NRGV's 3.08 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. NOEMU currently trades 89.1% from its 52-week high vs NRGV's 65.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -0.21x | 2.97x | 0.68x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $11.88 | $6.35 | $14.99 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $10.13 | $0.65 | $7.43 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +89.1% | +65.2% | +87.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 62.6 | 53.3 | 53.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 26 | 3.7M | 552K |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: NRGV as "Buy", CCRN as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 69.1% upside for NRGV (target: $7) vs -18.9% for CCRN (target: $11).
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $7.00 | $10.61 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 7 | 14 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +1.6% |
NOEMU leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Risk & Volatility). CCRN leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
NOEMU vs NRGV vs CCRN: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NOEMU or NRGV or CCRN a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Energy Vault Holdings, Inc.
(NRGV) is the stronger pick with 340. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -21. 6% for Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. (CCRN). CO2 Energy Transition Corp. Unit (NOEMU) offers the better valuation at 9999. 0x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Energy Vault Holdings, Inc. (NRGV) a "Buy" — based on 7 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which is the better long-term investment — NOEMU or NRGV or CCRN?
Over the past 5 years, CO2 Energy Transition Corp.
Unit (NOEMU) delivered a total return of +6. 1%, compared to -57. 7% for Energy Vault Holdings, Inc. (NRGV). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NOEMU returned +18. 6% versus NRGV's -53. 1%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
03Which is safer — NOEMU or NRGV or CCRN?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), CO2 Energy Transition Corp.
Unit (NOEMU) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 21β versus Energy Vault Holdings, Inc. 's 2. 97β — meaning NRGV is approximately -1499% more volatile than NOEMU relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, CO2 Energy Transition Corp. Unit (NOEMU) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 107% for Energy Vault Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — NOEMU or NRGV or CCRN?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Energy Vault Holdings, Inc.
(NRGV) is pulling ahead at 340. 9% versus -21. 6% for Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. (CCRN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: CO2 Energy Transition Corp. Unit grew EPS 100. 3% year-over-year, compared to -565. 9% for Cross Country Healthcare, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, NRGV leads at 11. 8% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
05Which has better profit margins — NOEMU or NRGV or CCRN?
CO2 Energy Transition Corp.
Unit (NOEMU) is the more profitable company, earning 0. 0% net margin versus -50. 9% for Energy Vault Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 0. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NOEMU leads at 0. 0% versus -36. 5% for NRGV. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NRGV leads at 23. 6%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
06Is NOEMU or NRGV or CCRN more undervalued right now?
Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NRGV: 69.
1% to $7. 00.
07Which pays a better dividend — NOEMU or NRGV or CCRN?
None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.
All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.
08Is NOEMU or NRGV or CCRN better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, CO2 Energy Transition Corp.
Unit (NOEMU) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 21)). Energy Vault Holdings, Inc. (NRGV) carries a higher beta of 2. 97 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (NOEMU: +18. 6%, NRGV: -53. 1%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
09What are the main differences between NOEMU and NRGV and CCRN?
These companies operate in different sectors (NOEMU (Financial Services) and NRGV (Utilities) and CCRN (Healthcare)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: NOEMU is a small-cap quality compounder stock; NRGV is a small-cap high-growth stock; CCRN is a small-cap quality compounder stock. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.