Engineering & Construction
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
MSW vs CLPS vs CNEY vs CANG vs BTBT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Information Technology Services
Chemicals - Specialty
Auto - Dealerships
Financial - Capital Markets
MSW vs CLPS vs CNEY vs CANG vs BTBT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Engineering & Construction | Information Technology Services | Chemicals - Specialty | Auto - Dealerships | Financial - Capital Markets |
| Market Cap | $25M | $25M | $4M | $250M | $589M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $34M | $299M | $87M | $3.46B | $164M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-6M | $-4M | $-25M | $-178M | $137M |
| Gross Margin | -3.9% | 22.8% | -8.6% | 13.6% | 61.9% |
| Operating Margin | -15.8% | -1.4% | -26.1% | 7.3% | 16.8% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | — | 5.7x | 9.2x |
| Total Debt | $8M | $34M | $3M | $170M | $14M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $250K | $28M | $391K | $1.29B | $95M |
MSW vs CLPS vs CNEY vs CANG vs BTBT — 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 | 31.1 | -68.9% |
| CLPS Incorporation (CLPS) | 100 | 81.6 | -18.4% |
| CN Energy Group. In… (CNEY) | 100 | 8.5 | -91.5% |
| Cango Inc. (CANG) | 100 | 25.9 | -74.1% |
| Bit Digital, Inc. (BTBT) | 100 | 39.7 | -60.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: MSW vs CLPS vs CNEY vs CANG vs BTBT
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.
CLPS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 3 yrs, beta 0.27, yield 14.6%
- Beta 0.27, yield 14.6%, current ratio 1.58x
- Beta 0.27 vs BTBT's 3.37
- 14.6% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs BTBT's 0.3%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
CNEY is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.57, Low D/E 3.4%, current ratio 13.90x
CANG ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding.
- -44.9% 10Y total return vs MSW's -65.5%
- Lower P/E (5.7x vs 9.2x)
BTBT is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 264.6%, EPS growth 225.0%
- 264.6% NII/revenue growth vs CANG's -52.7%
- 17.3% margin vs CNEY's -29.1%
- 19.0% ROA vs MSW's -45.3%, ROIC 6.5% vs -52.1%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 264.6% NII/revenue growth vs CANG's -52.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (5.7x vs 9.2x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 17.3% margin vs CNEY's -29.1% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.27 vs BTBT's 3.37 | |
| Dividends | 14.6% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs BTBT's 0.3%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | -5.4% vs CNEY's -85.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 19.0% ROA vs MSW's -45.3%, ROIC 6.5% vs -52.1% |
MSW vs CLPS vs CNEY vs CANG vs BTBT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
MSW vs CLPS vs CNEY vs CANG vs BTBT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
BTBT leads in 2 of 6 categories
CNEY leads 1 • CANG leads 1 • CLPS leads 1 • MSW leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
BTBT 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 — 102.2x MSW's $34M. BTBT is the more profitable business, keeping 17.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CNEY's -29.1%. On growth, CANG holds the edge at +58.3% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $34M | $299M | $87M | $3.5B | $164M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | — | -$1M | -$19M | $333M | $166M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | — | -$4M | -$25M | -$178M | $137M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | — | $0 | -$4M | $0 | -$448M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | -3.9% | +22.8% | -8.6% | +13.6% | +61.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -15.8% | -1.4% | -26.1% | +7.3% | +16.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -16.9% | -1.3% | -29.1% | -5.2% | +17.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -23.5% | -2.3% | -4.7% | -154.0% | -65.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +15.3% | -2.4% | +58.3% | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +75.8% | +94.2% | +3.6% | +2.8% |
Valuation Metrics
CNEY leads this category, winning 2 of 4 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 5.7x trailing earnings, CANG trades at a 38% valuation discount to BTBT's 9.2x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, CANG's 3.1x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than BTBT's 8.5x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $25M | $25M | $4M | $250M | $589M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $33M | $31M | $7M | $85M | $508M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -4.02x | -3.48x | -0.03x | 5.66x | 9.15x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | 3.13x | 8.49x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.74x | 0.15x | 0.11x | 2.12x | 3.60x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 23.24x | 0.43x | 0.00x | 0.42x | 0.56x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
BTBT leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
BTBT delivers a 21.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $21 in annual profit, vs $-6 for MSW. BTBT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.03x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to MSW's 7.87x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), BTBT scores 6/9 vs CLPS's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -5.8% | -6.1% | -24.9% | -4.1% | +21.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -45.3% | -3.2% | -23.5% | -2.3% | +19.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -52.1% | -7.9% | -8.2% | +4.6% | +6.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -133.1% | -9.8% | -11.0% | +4.5% | +8.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 7.87x | 0.59x | 0.03x | 0.04x | 0.03x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $7M | $6M | $3M | -$1.1B | -$81M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $249,923 | $28M | $390,706 | $1.3B | $95M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $8M | $34M | $3M | $170M | $14M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -10.52x | — | -29.77x | -1.87x | — |
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 $54 for CNEY. Over the past 12 months, CLPS leads with a -5.4% total return vs CNEY's -85.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CANG at 0.4% vs CNEY's -51.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +93.2% | -10.3% | +11.9% | -62.0% | -10.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -40.6% | -5.4% | -85.4% | -73.7% | -9.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -65.5% | +0.5% | -88.4% | +1.2% | -19.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -65.5% | -69.3% | -99.5% | -14.2% | -84.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -65.5% | -78.5% | -99.6% | -44.9% | -60.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -29.8% | +0.2% | -51.2% | +0.4% | -7.1% |
Risk & Volatility
CLPS leads this category, winning 2 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 BTBT's 3.37 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CLPS currently trades 48.2% from its 52-week high vs CNEY's 9.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.32x | 0.27x | 0.57x | 2.25x | 3.37x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $8.11 | $1.88 | $7.36 | $2.88 | $4.55 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.60 | $0.80 | $0.31 | $0.33 | $1.25 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +23.8% | +48.2% | +9.6% | +18.6% | +40.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 61.5 | 49.8 | 54.5 | 58.6 | 69.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 77K | 15K | 643K | 1.3M | 18.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — CLPS and CANG each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CANG as "Buy", BTBT as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 459.2% upside for CANG (target: $3) vs 173.2% for BTBT (target: $5). For income investors, CLPS offers the higher dividend yield at 14.60% vs BTBT's 0.31%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | — | — | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | — | — | $3.00 | $5.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | — | — | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +14.6% | — | — | +0.3% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 3 | — | 5 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.13 | — | — | $0.01 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +5.3% | 0.0% |
BTBT leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). CNEY leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
MSW vs CLPS vs CNEY vs CANG vs BTBT: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is MSW or CLPS or CNEY or CANG 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 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 has the better valuation — MSW or CLPS or CNEY or CANG or BTBT?
On trailing P/E, Cango Inc.
(CANG) is the cheapest at 5. 7x versus Bit Digital, Inc. at 9. 2x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — MSW or CLPS or CNEY or CANG or BTBT?
Over the past 5 years, Cango Inc.
(CANG) delivered a total return of -14. 2%, compared to -99. 5% for CN Energy Group. Inc. (CNEY). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CANG returned -44. 9% versus CNEY's -99. 6%. 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 — MSW or CLPS or CNEY or CANG or BTBT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), CLPS Incorporation (CLPS) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
27β versus Bit Digital, Inc. 's 3. 37β — meaning BTBT is approximately 1141% more volatile than CLPS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Bit Digital, Inc. (BTBT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 3% versus 8% for Ming Shing Group Holdings Limited — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — MSW or CLPS or CNEY or CANG 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 -400. 0% for Ming Shing Group Holdings Limited. Over a 3-year CAGR, MSW leads at 33. 0% 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 — MSW or CLPS or CNEY or CANG or BTBT?
Cango Inc.
(CANG) is the more profitable company, earning 37. 3% net margin versus -31. 3% for CN Energy Group. Inc. — 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 -30. 9% for CNEY. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — BTBT leads at 61. 9%, 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.
07Which pays a better dividend — MSW or CLPS or CNEY or CANG or BTBT?
In this comparison, CLPS (14.
6% yield), BTBT (0. 3% yield) pay a dividend. MSW, CNEY, CANG do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
08Is MSW or CLPS or CNEY or CANG or BTBT 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.
27), 14. 6% yield). Bit Digital, Inc. (BTBT) carries a higher beta of 3. 37 — 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. 5%, BTBT: -60. 4%), 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.
09What are the main differences between MSW and CLPS and CNEY and CANG and BTBT?
These companies operate in different sectors (MSW (Industrials) and CLPS (Technology) and CNEY (Basic Materials) and CANG (Consumer Cyclical) 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: MSW is a small-cap high-growth stock; CLPS is a small-cap high-growth stock; CNEY is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CANG is a small-cap deep-value stock; BTBT is a small-cap high-growth stock. CLPS pays a dividend while MSW, CNEY, CANG, BTBT 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.