CTNT vs SOS vs BTBT vs LFMD vs MARA

For growth investors, Bit Digital, Inc.

(BTBT) is the stronger pick with 264. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -8. 7% for LifeMD, Inc. (LFMD). Bit Digital, Inc. (BTBT) offers the better valuation at 9. 2x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Bit Digital, Inc. (BTBT) a "Buy" — based on 2 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.

Over the past 5 years, LifeMD, Inc.

(LFMD) delivered a total return of -45. 8%, compared to -100. 0% for Cheetah Net Supply Chain Service Inc. (CTNT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: LFMD returned +220. 7% versus SOS's -100. 0%. 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), Cheetah Net Supply Chain Service Inc.

(CTNT) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 87β versus Bit Digital, Inc. 's 3. 37β — meaning BTBT is approximately 286% more volatile than CTNT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Bit Digital, Inc. (BTBT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 3% versus 105% for Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Bit Digital, Inc.

(BTBT) is pulling ahead at 264. 6% versus -8. 7% for LifeMD, Inc. (LFMD). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Bit Digital, Inc. grew EPS 225. 0% year-over-year, compared to -82. 3% for SOS Limited. Over a 3-year CAGR, LFMD leads at 17. 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.

Bit Digital, Inc.

(BTBT) is the more profitable company, earning 17. 3% net margin versus -283. 2% for Cheetah Net Supply Chain Service Inc. — meaning it keeps 17. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BTBT leads at 16. 8% versus -298. 4% for CTNT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — LFMD leads at 79. 8%, 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.

In this comparison, LFMD (1.

5% yield), BTBT (0. 3% yield) pay a dividend. CTNT, SOS, MARA do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Cheetah Net Supply Chain Service Inc.

(CTNT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 87)). SOS Limited (SOS) carries a higher beta of 2. 01 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (CTNT: -100. 0%, SOS: -100. 0%), 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.

These companies operate in different sectors (CTNT (Consumer Cyclical) and SOS (Technology) and BTBT (Financial Services) and LFMD (Healthcare) and MARA (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

In terms of investment character: CTNT is a small-cap high-growth stock; SOS is a small-cap high-growth stock; BTBT is a small-cap high-growth stock; LFMD is a small-cap quality compounder stock; MARA is a small-cap high-growth stock. LFMD pays a dividend while CTNT, SOS, BTBT, MARA do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.