SUGP vs CODA

For growth investors, Coda Octopus Group, Inc.

(CODA) is the stronger pick with 30. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 11. 3% for SU Group Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares (SUGP). Coda Octopus Group, Inc. (CODA) offers the better valuation at 32. 2x trailing P/E (22. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Coda Octopus Group, Inc. (CODA) a "Buy" — based on 1 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.

On trailing P/E, Coda Octopus Group, Inc.

(CODA) is the cheapest at 32. 2x versus SU Group Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares at 41. 3x.

Over the past 5 years, Coda Octopus Group, Inc.

(CODA) delivered a total return of +49. 7%, compared to -89. 2% for SU Group Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares (SUGP). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CODA returned +844. 4% versus SUGP's -89. 2%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Coda Octopus Group, Inc.

(CODA) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 00β versus SU Group Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares's 1. 58β — meaning SUGP is approximately 58% more volatile than CODA relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Coda Octopus Group, Inc. (CODA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 1% versus 7% for SU Group Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Coda Octopus Group, Inc.

(CODA) is pulling ahead at 30. 7% versus 11. 3% for SU Group Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares (SUGP). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Coda Octopus Group, Inc. grew EPS 15. 6% year-over-year, compared to 1. 2% for SU Group Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares. Over a 3-year CAGR, SUGP leads at 15. 7% 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.

Coda Octopus Group, Inc.

(CODA) is the more profitable company, earning 15. 5% net margin versus 5. 8% for SU Group Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares — meaning it keeps 15. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CODA leads at 17. 1% versus 6. 0% for SUGP. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CODA leads at 66. 5%, 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.

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.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Coda Octopus Group, Inc.

(CODA) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 00), +844. 4% 10Y return). SU Group Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares (SUGP) carries a higher beta of 1. 58 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (CODA: +844. 4%, SUGP: -89. 2%), 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.

Both stocks operate in the Industrials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

In terms of investment character: SUGP is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CODA is a small-cap high-growth 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.