Medical - Care Facilities
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
MCTA vs CANG vs CLOV vs ACMR vs BTBT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Auto - Dealerships
Medical - Healthcare Plans
Semiconductors
Financial - Capital Markets
MCTA vs CANG vs CLOV vs ACMR vs BTBT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Care Facilities | Auto - Dealerships | Medical - Healthcare Plans | Semiconductors | Financial - Capital Markets |
| Market Cap | $445M | $272M | $1.70B | $4.17B | $631M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $6M | $3.46B | $2.21B | $960M | $164M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $1M | $-178M | $-57M | $91M | $137M |
| Gross Margin | 67.2% | 13.6% | 18.2% | 44.2% | 61.9% |
| Operating Margin | 22.3% | 7.3% | -2.8% | 12.5% | 16.8% |
| Forward P/E | 414.5x | 6.1x | 92.7x | 32.4x | 9.8x |
| Total Debt | $1M | $170M | $0.00 | $303M | $14M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $817K | $1.29B | $78M | $766M | $95M |
MCTA vs CANG vs CLOV vs ACMR vs BTBT — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cango Inc. (CANG) | 100 | 19.2 | -80.8% |
| Clover Health Inves… (CLOV) | 100 | 29.3 | -70.7% |
| ACM Research, Inc. (ACMR) | 100 | 303.0 | +203.0% |
| Bit Digital, Inc. (BTBT) | 100 | 151.9 | +51.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: MCTA vs CANG vs CLOV vs ACMR vs BTBT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
MCTA carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for quality and momentum.
- 19.3% margin vs CANG's -5.2%
- +319.3% vs CANG's -73.2%
- 23.4% ROA vs CLOV's -9.6%, ROIC 265.0% vs -34.0%
CANG is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- Lower volatility, beta 2.49, Low D/E 4.1%, current ratio 1.88x
- Lower P/E (6.1x vs 32.4x)
CLOV ranks third and is worth considering specifically for stability.
- Beta 1.26 vs BTBT's 3.41
ACMR is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 32.7% 10Y total return vs MCTA's 319.3%
- 0.2% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs BTBT's 0.3%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
BTBT is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 3.41, yield 0.3%
- Rev growth 264.6%, EPS growth 225.0%
- Beta 3.41, yield 0.3%, current ratio 5.39x
- 264.6% NII/revenue growth vs CANG's -52.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 264.6% NII/revenue growth vs CANG's -52.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (6.1x vs 32.4x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 19.3% margin vs CANG's -5.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.26 vs BTBT's 3.41 | |
| Dividends | 0.2% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs BTBT's 0.3%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +319.3% vs CANG's -73.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 23.4% ROA vs CLOV's -9.6%, ROIC 265.0% vs -34.0% |
MCTA vs CANG vs CLOV vs ACMR vs BTBT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
MCTA vs CANG vs CLOV vs ACMR vs BTBT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
MCTA leads in 2 of 6 categories
ACMR leads 1 • CANG leads 0 • CLOV leads 0 • BTBT leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MCTA leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CANG is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.5B annually — 556.1x MCTA's $6M. MCTA is the more profitable business, keeping 19.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CANG's -5.2%. On growth, CANG holds the edge at +58.3% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $6M | $3.5B | $2.2B | $960M | $164M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | — | $333M | -$60M | $139M | $166M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | — | -$178M | -$57M | $91M | $137M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | — | $0 | $55M | -$108M | -$448M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +67.2% | +13.6% | +18.2% | +44.2% | +61.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +22.3% | +7.3% | -2.8% | +12.5% | +16.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +19.3% | -5.2% | -2.6% | +9.5% | +17.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +2.2% | -154.0% | +2.5% | -11.3% | -65.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +58.3% | +61.0% | +34.2% | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +3.6% | — | -20.0% | +2.8% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — CANG and CLOV each lead in 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 6.1x trailing earnings, CANG trades at a 99% valuation discount to MCTA's 414.5x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, CANG's 3.9x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than MCTA's 269.8x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $445M | $272M | $1.7B | $4.2B | $631M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $446M | $107M | $1.6B | $3.7B | $550M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 414.55x | 6.14x | -19.29x | 45.98x | 9.80x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 92.66x | 32.43x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | 1.30x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 269.80x | 3.90x | — | 29.49x | 9.19x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 71.60x | 2.29x | 0.88x | 4.63x | 3.86x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 9999.00x | 0.45x | 5.50x | 2.20x | 0.60x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 3219.65x | — | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
MCTA leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MCTA delivers a 24.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $24 in annual profit, vs $-17 for CLOV. BTBT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.03x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to MCTA's 23.57x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MCTA scores 6/9 vs ACMR's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +24.4% | -4.1% | -17.1% | +5.1% | +21.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +23.4% | -2.3% | -9.6% | +3.4% | +19.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +2.6% | +4.6% | -34.0% | +7.0% | +6.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +3.4% | +4.5% | -24.5% | +6.6% | +8.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 23.57x | 0.04x | — | 0.16x | 0.03x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $343,868 | -$1.1B | -$78M | -$463M | -$81M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $816,771 | $1.3B | $78M | $766M | $95M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1M | $170M | $0 | $303M | $14M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 66.54x | -1.87x | — | 20.41x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
ACMR leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MCTA five years ago would be worth $41,929 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,019 for BTBT. Over the past 12 months, MCTA leads with a +319.3% total return vs CANG's -73.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors ACMR at 90.2% vs BTBT's -0.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -0.0% | -58.7% | +36.1% | +40.4% | -3.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +319.3% | -73.2% | -5.5% | +155.8% | -8.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +319.3% | +4.0% | +236.4% | +588.4% | -1.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +319.3% | -3.3% | -57.8% | +194.1% | -79.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +319.3% | -44.2% | -67.8% | +3268.4% | -57.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +61.3% | +1.3% | +49.8% | +90.2% | -0.3% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — MCTA and CLOV each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CLOV is the less volatile stock with a 1.26 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than BTBT's 3.41 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. MCTA currently trades 92.6% from its 52-week high vs CANG's 20.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | — | 2.49x | 1.26x | 3.17x | 3.41x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $31.70 | $2.88 | $3.92 | $71.65 | $4.55 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $4.30 | $0.33 | $1.58 | $21.87 | $1.25 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +92.6% | +20.2% | +83.7% | +87.9% | +43.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 78.5 | 67.0 | 81.5 | 72.6 | 71.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 0 | 1.4M | 5.7M | 1.1M | 19.6M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — CANG and BTBT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CANG as "Buy", CLOV as "Hold", ACMR as "Buy", BTBT as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 414.9% upside for CANG (target: $3) vs 1.5% for CLOV (target: $3). For income investors, BTBT offers the higher dividend yield at 0.29% vs ACMR's 0.18%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $3.00 | $3.33 | $75.00 | $5.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 2 | 9 | 10 | 2 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | +0.2% | +0.3% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 5 | — | 3 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | $0.11 | $0.01 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +4.9% | +3.2% | +0.2% | 0.0% |
MCTA leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). ACMR leads in 1 (Total Returns). 3 tied.
MCTA vs CANG vs CLOV vs ACMR vs BTBT: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is MCTA or CANG or CLOV or ACMR or BTBT a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Bit Digital, Inc.
(BTBT) is the stronger pick with 264. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -52. 7% for Cango Inc. (CANG). Cango Inc. (CANG) offers the better valuation at 6. 1x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Cango Inc. (CANG) 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.
02Which has the better valuation — MCTA or CANG or CLOV or ACMR or BTBT?
On trailing P/E, Cango Inc.
(CANG) is the cheapest at 6. 1x versus Charming Medical Limited Class A Ordinary Shares at 414. 5x. On forward P/E, ACM Research, Inc. is actually cheaper at 32. 4x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — MCTA or CANG or CLOV or ACMR or BTBT?
Over the past 5 years, Charming Medical Limited Class A Ordinary Shares (MCTA) delivered a total return of +319.
3%, compared to -79. 8% for Bit Digital, Inc. (BTBT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ACMR returned +32. 7% versus CLOV's -67. 8%. 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 — MCTA or CANG or CLOV or ACMR or BTBT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Clover Health Investments, Corp.
(CLOV) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 26β versus Bit Digital, Inc. 's 3. 41β — meaning BTBT is approximately 172% more volatile than CLOV relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Bit Digital, Inc. (BTBT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 3% versus 24% for Charming Medical Limited Class A Ordinary Shares — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — MCTA or CANG or CLOV or ACMR or BTBT?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Bit Digital, Inc.
(BTBT) is pulling ahead at 264. 6% versus -52. 7% for Cango Inc. (CANG). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Cango Inc. grew EPS 960. 0% year-over-year, compared to -93. 6% for Clover Health Investments, Corp.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ACMR leads at 32. 3% 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 — MCTA or CANG or CLOV or ACMR or BTBT?
Cango Inc.
(CANG) is the more profitable company, earning 37. 3% net margin versus -4. 4% for Clover Health Investments, Corp. — meaning it keeps 37. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MCTA leads at 22. 3% versus -4. 4% for CLOV. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MCTA leads at 67. 2%, 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 MCTA or CANG or CLOV or ACMR or BTBT more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, ACM Research, Inc.
(ACMR) trades at 32. 4x forward P/E versus 92. 7x for Clover Health Investments, Corp. — 60. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CANG: 414. 9% to $3. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — MCTA or CANG or CLOV or ACMR or BTBT?
In this comparison, BTBT (0.
3% yield), ACMR (0. 2% yield) pay a dividend. MCTA, CANG, CLOV do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is MCTA or CANG or CLOV or ACMR or BTBT better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Clover Health Investments, Corp.
(CLOV) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 26)). Bit Digital, Inc. (BTBT) carries a higher beta of 3. 41 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (CLOV: -67. 8%, BTBT: -57. 6%), 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 MCTA and CANG and CLOV and ACMR and BTBT?
These companies operate in different sectors (MCTA (Healthcare) and CANG (Consumer Cyclical) and CLOV (Healthcare) and ACMR (Technology) and BTBT (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: MCTA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CANG is a small-cap deep-value stock; CLOV is a small-cap high-growth stock; ACMR is a small-cap high-growth stock; BTBT 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.