Engineering & Construction
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
MSW vs CANG vs AUTL vs CLPS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Auto - Dealerships
Biotechnology
Information Technology Services
MSW vs CANG vs AUTL vs CLPS — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Engineering & Construction | Auto - Dealerships | Biotechnology | Information Technology Services |
| Market Cap | $25M | $250M | $410M | $25M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $34M | $3.46B | $51M | $299M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-6M | $-178M | $-225M | $-4M |
| Gross Margin | -3.9% | 13.6% | -309.4% | 22.8% |
| Operating Margin | -15.8% | 7.3% | -8.6% | -1.4% |
| Forward P/E | — | 5.7x | — | — |
| Total Debt | $8M | $170M | $53M | $34M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $250K | $1.29B | $227M | $28M |
MSW vs CANG vs AUTL vs CLPS — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Nov 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ming Shing Group Ho… (MSW) | 100 | 28.4 | -71.6% |
| Cango Inc. (CANG) | 100 | 31.5 | -68.5% |
| Autolus Therapeutic… (AUTL) | 100 | 47.3 | -52.7% |
| CLPS Incorporation (CLPS) | 100 | 81.1 | -18.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: MSW vs CANG vs AUTL vs CLPS
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
MSW lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
CANG is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- -44.9% 10Y total return vs MSW's -65.5%
- -2.3% ROA vs MSW's -45.3%, ROIC 4.6% vs -52.1%
AUTL is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 496.0%, EPS growth 27.5%, 3Y rev CAGR 88.7%
- 496.0% revenue growth vs CANG's -52.7%
- +30.5% vs CANG's -73.7%
CLPS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 3 yrs, beta 0.27, yield 14.6%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.27, Low D/E 58.8%, current ratio 1.58x
- Beta 0.27, yield 14.6%, current ratio 1.58x
- -1.3% margin vs AUTL's -439.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 496.0% revenue growth vs CANG's -52.7% | |
| Quality / Margins | -1.3% margin vs AUTL's -439.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.27 vs CANG's 2.25 | |
| Dividends | 14.6% yield; 3-year raise streak; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +30.5% vs CANG's -73.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | -2.3% ROA vs MSW's -45.3%, ROIC 4.6% vs -52.1% |
MSW vs CANG vs AUTL vs CLPS — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
MSW vs CANG vs AUTL vs CLPS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CANG leads in 3 of 6 categories
MSW leads 0 • AUTL leads 0 • CLPS leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — CANG and CLPS each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CANG is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.5B annually — 102.2x MSW's $34M. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from -1.3% (CLPS) to -4.4% (AUTL). On growth, CANG holds the edge at +58.3% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $34M | $3.5B | $51M | $299M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | — | $333M | -$427M | -$1M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | — | -$178M | -$225M | -$4M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | — | $0 | -$278M | $0 |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | -3.9% | +13.6% | -3.1% | +22.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -15.8% | +7.3% | -8.6% | -1.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -16.9% | -5.2% | -4.4% | -1.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -23.5% | -154.0% | -5.4% | -2.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +58.3% | — | +15.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +3.6% | +3.2% | +75.8% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — MSW and CANG and CLPS each lead in 1 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $25M | $250M | $410M | $25M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $33M | $85M | $235M | $31M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -4.02x | 5.66x | -1.84x | -3.48x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 3.13x | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.74x | 2.12x | 40.47x | 0.15x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 23.24x | 0.42x | 0.96x | 0.43x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
CANG leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CANG delivers a -4.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-4 in annual profit, vs $-6 for MSW. CANG carries lower financial leverage with a 0.04x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to MSW's 7.87x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), AUTL scores 5/9 vs CLPS's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -5.8% | -4.1% | -84.7% | -6.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -45.3% | -2.3% | -34.0% | -3.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -52.1% | +4.6% | -2.0% | -7.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -133.1% | +4.5% | -45.9% | -9.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 7.87x | 0.04x | 0.12x | 0.59x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $7M | -$1.1B | -$175M | $6M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $249,923 | $1.3B | $227M | $28M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $8M | $170M | $53M | $34M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -10.52x | -1.87x | -25.98x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CANG leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CANG five years ago would be worth $8,579 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,989 for AUTL. Over the past 12 months, AUTL leads with a +30.5% total return vs CANG's -73.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CANG at 0.4% vs MSW's -29.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +93.2% | -62.0% | -14.2% | -10.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -40.6% | -73.7% | +30.5% | -5.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -65.5% | +1.2% | -14.6% | +0.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -65.5% | -14.2% | -70.1% | -69.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -65.5% | -44.9% | -93.6% | -78.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -29.8% | +0.4% | -5.1% | +0.2% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — AUTL and CLPS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CLPS is the less volatile stock with a 0.27 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CANG's 2.25 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. AUTL currently trades 59.4% from its 52-week high vs CANG's 18.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.15x | 2.49x | 1.87x | 0.19x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $8.11 | $2.88 | $2.70 | $1.88 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.60 | $0.33 | $1.15 | $0.80 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +23.8% | +18.6% | +59.4% | +48.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 61.5 | 58.6 | 64.3 | 49.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 77K | 1.3M | 1.6M | 15K |
Analyst Outlook
CANG leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CANG as "Buy", AUTL as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 459.2% upside for CANG (target: $3) vs 452.6% for AUTL (target: $9). CLPS is the only dividend payer here at 14.60% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | — |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $3.00 | $8.87 | — |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 2 | 14 | — |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | +14.6% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 5 | — | 3 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | $0.13 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +5.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
CANG leads in 3 of 6 categories — strongest in Profitability & Efficiency and Total Returns. 3 categories are tied.
MSW vs CANG vs AUTL vs CLPS: Key Questions Answered
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is MSW or CANG or AUTL or CLPS a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Autolus Therapeutics plc (AUTL) is the stronger pick with 496.
0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -52. 7% for Cango Inc. (CANG). Cango Inc. (CANG) offers the better valuation at 5. 7x 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 is the better long-term investment — MSW or CANG or AUTL or CLPS?
Over the past 5 years, Cango Inc.
(CANG) delivered a total return of -14. 2%, compared to -70. 1% for Autolus Therapeutics plc (AUTL). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CANG returned -43. 2% versus AUTL's -93. 7%. 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 — MSW or CANG or AUTL or CLPS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), CLPS Incorporation (CLPS) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
19β versus Cango Inc. 's 2. 49β — meaning CANG is approximately 1177% more volatile than CLPS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Cango Inc. (CANG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 4% versus 8% for Ming Shing Group Holdings Limited — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — MSW or CANG or AUTL or CLPS?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Autolus Therapeutics plc (AUTL) is pulling ahead at 496.
0% 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 -400. 0% for Ming Shing Group Holdings Limited. Over a 3-year CAGR, AUTL leads at 88. 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.
05Which has better profit margins — MSW or CANG or AUTL or CLPS?
Cango Inc.
(CANG) is the more profitable company, earning 37. 3% net margin versus -21. 8% for Autolus Therapeutics plc — meaning it keeps 37. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CANG leads at 22. 2% versus -23. 9% for AUTL. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CANG leads at 55. 3%, 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.
06Which pays a better dividend — MSW or CANG or AUTL or CLPS?
In this comparison, CLPS (14.
6% yield) pays a dividend. MSW, CANG, AUTL do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
07Is MSW or CANG or AUTL or CLPS better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, CLPS Incorporation (CLPS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
19), 14. 6% yield). Cango Inc. (CANG) carries a higher beta of 2. 49 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (CLPS: -78. 6%, CANG: -43. 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.
08What are the main differences between MSW and CANG and AUTL and CLPS?
These companies operate in different sectors (MSW (Industrials) and CANG (Consumer Cyclical) and AUTL (Healthcare) and CLPS (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: MSW is a small-cap high-growth stock; CANG is a small-cap deep-value stock; AUTL is a small-cap high-growth stock; CLPS is a small-cap high-growth stock. CLPS pays a dividend while MSW, CANG, AUTL 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.
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.