Steel
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
HLP vs TANH vs CODA vs CBAT vs NRGV
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Household & Personal Products
Aerospace & Defense
Electrical Equipment & Parts
Renewable Utilities
HLP vs TANH vs CODA vs CBAT vs NRGV — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Steel | Household & Personal Products | Aerospace & Defense | Electrical Equipment & Parts | Renewable Utilities |
| Market Cap | $60M | $402K | $136M | $71M | $784M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $30M | $90M | $28M | $162M | $217M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-1M | $2M | $4M | $-7M | $-115M |
| Gross Margin | 32.4% | 21.2% | 66.3% | 10.8% | 22.1% |
| Operating Margin | -1.9% | 6.4% | 17.4% | -10.5% | -35.8% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 22.8x | 6.1x | — |
| Total Debt | $9M | $5M | $395K | $30M | $95M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $910K | $35M | $29M | $7M | $58M |
HLP vs TANH vs CODA vs CBAT vs NRGV — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Mar 23 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hongli Group Inc. (HLP) | 100 | 23.7 | -76.3% |
| Tantech Holdings Ltd (TANH) | 100 | 0.5 | -99.5% |
| Coda Octopus Group,… (CODA) | 100 | 165.4 | +65.4% |
| CBAK Energy Technol… (CBAT) | 100 | 89.8 | -10.2% |
| Energy Vault Holdin… (NRGV) | 100 | 211.7 | +111.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: HLP vs TANH vs CODA vs CBAT vs NRGV
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Among these 5 stocks, HLP doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
TANH ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.82, Low D/E 3.5%, current ratio 10.02x
- Beta 0.82, current ratio 10.02x
- Beta 0.82 vs NRGV's 2.97, lower leverage
CODA has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in long-term compounding.
- 8.6% 10Y total return vs NRGV's -53.1%
- 14.8% margin vs NRGV's -53.0%
- 6.6% ROA vs NRGV's -40.3%, ROIC 11.2% vs -49.5%
CBAT is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 1.01
- Better valuation composite
NRGV is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 340.9%, EPS growth 28.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 11.8%
- 340.9% revenue growth vs CBAT's -13.6%
- +475.7% vs TANH's -83.2%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 340.9% revenue growth vs CBAT's -13.6% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 14.8% margin vs NRGV's -53.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.82 vs NRGV's 2.97, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 5 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +475.7% vs TANH's -83.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 6.6% ROA vs NRGV's -40.3%, ROIC 11.2% vs -49.5% |
HLP vs TANH vs CODA vs CBAT vs NRGV — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
HLP vs TANH vs CODA vs CBAT vs NRGV — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CODA leads in 2 of 6 categories
TANH leads 1 • CBAT leads 1 • HLP leads 0 • NRGV leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CODA leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NRGV is the larger business by revenue, generating $217M annually — 7.7x CODA's $28M. CODA is the more profitable business, keeping 14.8% 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 | $30M | $90M | $28M | $162M | $217M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1M | $8M | $6M | -$8M | -$72M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$1M | $2M | $4M | -$7M | -$115M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$2M | $9M | $7M | -$8M | -$98M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +32.4% | +21.2% | +66.3% | +10.8% | +22.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -1.9% | +6.4% | +17.4% | -10.5% | -35.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -3.4% | +2.6% | +14.8% | -4.0% | -53.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -6.4% | +10.0% | +24.6% | -5.1% | -45.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +0.9% | -22.3% | +28.8% | +36.5% | +156.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -18.4% | +3.0% | — | -42.9% |
Valuation Metrics
TANH leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 6.1x trailing earnings, CBAT trades at a 81% valuation discount to CODA's 32.7x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, CBAT's 5.2x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than CODA's 18.3x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $60M | $402,094 | $136M | $71M | $784M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $69M | -$30M | $108M | $94M | $820M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -32.11x | -0.05x | 32.73x | 6.08x | -6.97x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 22.85x | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 7.64x | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | -5.40x | 18.25x | 5.25x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 4.28x | 0.01x | 5.14x | 0.40x | 3.85x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.13x | 0.00x | 2.34x | 0.59x | 8.21x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 0.10x | 22.60x | 3.15x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
CODA leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CODA delivers a 7.2% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $7 in annual profit, vs $-147 for NRGV. CODA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.01x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to NRGV's 1.07x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CODA scores 7/9 vs HLP's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -1.9% | +1.8% | +7.2% | -5.5% | -146.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -1.6% | +1.6% | +6.6% | -2.0% | -40.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -2.6% | +3.0% | +11.2% | +4.6% | -49.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -3.9% | +3.1% | +8.1% | +7.0% | -53.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.18x | 0.04x | 0.01x | 0.25x | 1.07x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $8M | -$31M | -$28M | $23M | $36M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $909,716 | $35M | $29M | $7M | $58M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $9M | $5M | $394,932 | $30M | $95M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -0.00x | 10.06x | — | -24.86x | -10.33x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — CODA and NRGV each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CODA five years ago would be worth $15,586 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $0 for TANH. Over the past 12 months, NRGV leads with a +475.7% total return vs TANH's -83.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors NRGV at 38.1% vs TANH's -84.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -19.1% | -64.5% | +27.3% | -8.1% | -7.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -38.2% | -83.2% | +78.9% | -8.1% | +475.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -65.8% | -99.6% | +36.8% | +2.6% | +163.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -76.5% | -100.0% | +55.9% | -78.7% | -53.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -76.5% | -100.0% | +861.1% | -69.7% | -53.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -30.0% | -84.2% | +11.0% | +0.9% | +38.1% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — TANH and NRGV each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
TANH is the less volatile stock with a 0.82 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than NRGV's 2.97 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. NRGV currently trades 71.3% from its 52-week high vs TANH's 8.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.85x | 0.82x | 0.99x | 1.01x | 2.97x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $1.82 | $4.05 | $17.28 | $1.25 | $6.35 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.61 | $0.30 | $5.98 | $0.77 | $0.65 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +45.2% | +8.8% | +70.1% | +63.2% | +71.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 43.4 | 38.4 | 48.3 | 38.4 | 52.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 163K | 241K | 255K | 110K | 3.7M |
Analyst Outlook
CBAT leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CODA as "Buy", NRGV as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 54.5% upside for NRGV (target: $7) vs 15.6% for CODA (target: $14).
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | — | Buy | — | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | — | $14.00 | — | $7.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | — | 1 | — | 7 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | 0 | 1 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
CODA leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). TANH leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
HLP vs TANH vs CODA vs CBAT vs NRGV: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is HLP or TANH or CODA or CBAT or NRGV 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 -13. 6% for CBAK Energy Technology, Inc. (CBAT). CBAK Energy Technology, Inc. (CBAT) offers the better valuation at 6. 1x trailing P/E, 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.
02Which has the better valuation — HLP or TANH or CODA or CBAT or NRGV?
On trailing P/E, CBAK Energy Technology, Inc.
(CBAT) is the cheapest at 6. 1x versus Coda Octopus Group, Inc. at 32. 7x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — HLP or TANH or CODA or CBAT or NRGV?
Over the past 5 years, Coda Octopus Group, Inc.
(CODA) delivered a total return of +55. 9%, compared to -100. 0% for Tantech Holdings Ltd (TANH). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CODA returned +861. 1% versus TANH'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.
04Which is safer — HLP or TANH or CODA or CBAT or NRGV?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Tantech Holdings Ltd (TANH) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
82β versus Energy Vault Holdings, Inc. 's 2. 97β — meaning NRGV is approximately 260% more volatile than TANH relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Coda Octopus Group, Inc. (CODA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 1% versus 107% for Energy Vault Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — HLP or TANH or CODA or CBAT or NRGV?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Energy Vault Holdings, Inc.
(NRGV) is pulling ahead at 340. 9% versus -13. 6% for CBAK Energy Technology, Inc. (CBAT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: CBAK Energy Technology, Inc. grew EPS 574. 5% year-over-year, compared to -134. 8% for Hongli Group Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CBAT leads at 49. 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.
06Which has better profit margins — HLP or TANH or CODA or CBAT or NRGV?
Coda Octopus Group, Inc.
(CODA) is the more profitable company, earning 15. 5% net margin versus -50. 9% for Energy Vault Holdings, Inc. — 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 -36. 5% for NRGV. 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.
07Is HLP or TANH or CODA or CBAT or NRGV more undervalued right now?
Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NRGV: 54.
5% to $7. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — HLP or TANH or CODA or CBAT or NRGV?
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.
09Is HLP or TANH or CODA or CBAT or NRGV better for a retirement portfolio?
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 0. 99), +861. 1% 10Y return). 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 (CODA: +861. 1%, 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.
10What are the main differences between HLP and TANH and CODA and CBAT and NRGV?
These companies operate in different sectors (HLP (Basic Materials) and TANH (Consumer Defensive) and CODA (Industrials) and CBAT (Industrials) and NRGV (Utilities)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: HLP is a small-cap quality compounder stock; TANH is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CODA is a small-cap high-growth stock; CBAT is a small-cap deep-value stock; NRGV 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.
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.