Shell Companies
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
NOEMU vs CCRN vs AMN vs NRGV
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Care Facilities
Medical - Care Facilities
Renewable Utilities
NOEMU vs CCRN vs AMN vs NRGV — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Shell Companies | Medical - Care Facilities | Medical - Care Facilities | Renewable Utilities |
| Market Cap | $89M | $423M | $869M | $716M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $761M | $3.42B | $217M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $1M | $-99M | $-32M | $-115M |
| Gross Margin | — | 18.2% | 25.5% | 22.1% |
| Operating Margin | — | -0.9% | 0.3% | -35.8% |
| Forward P/E | 9999.0x | 133.8x | 11.0x | — |
| Total Debt | $12K | $2M | $803M | $95M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $953K | $109M | $34M | $58M |
NOEMU vs CCRN vs AMN vs NRGV — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Nov 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| CO2 Energy Transiti… (NOEMU) | 100 | 118.5 | +18.5% |
| Cross Country Healt… (CCRN) | 100 | 121.7 | +21.7% |
| AMN Healthcare Serv… (AMN) | 100 | 86.4 | -13.6% |
| Energy Vault Holdin… (NRGV) | 100 | 201.0 | +101.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NOEMU vs CCRN vs AMN vs NRGV
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
NOEMU has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in long-term compounding.
- 6.1% 10Y total return vs CCRN's -10.5%
- 0.4% margin vs NRGV's -53.0%
- 1.8% ROA vs NRGV's -40.3%, ROIC -0.5% vs -49.5%
CCRN is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.78
- Lower volatility, beta 0.78, Low D/E 0.7%, current ratio 3.78x
- Beta 0.78, current ratio 3.78x
- Beta 0.78 vs NRGV's 3.08, lower leverage
AMN is the clearest fit if your priority is value.
- 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 CCRN's -21.6%
- +447.1% vs CCRN's -5.4%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 340.9% revenue growth vs CCRN's -21.6% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 0.4% margin vs NRGV's -53.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.78 vs NRGV's 3.08, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 4 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +447.1% vs CCRN's -5.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 1.8% ROA vs NRGV's -40.3%, ROIC -0.5% vs -49.5% |
NOEMU vs CCRN vs AMN vs NRGV — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
NOEMU vs CCRN vs AMN vs NRGV — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
AMN leads in 2 of 6 categories
NOEMU leads 1 • NRGV leads 1 • CCRN leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AMN leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AMN and NOEMU operate at a comparable scale, with $3.4B and $0 in trailing revenue. AMN is the more profitable business, keeping -0.9% 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 | $0 | $761M | $3.4B | $217M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $788,698 | $9M | $127M | -$72M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $1M | -$99M | -$32M | -$115M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$900,105 | $41M | $714M | -$98M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +18.2% | +25.5% | +22.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | -0.9% | +0.3% | -35.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | -13.0% | -0.9% | -53.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | +5.4% | +20.9% | -45.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -100.0% | +99.9% | +156.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -6.0% | +56.8% | -42.9% |
Valuation Metrics
AMN leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
On an enterprise value basis, AMN's 8.6x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than NOEMU's 1354.2x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $89M | $423M | $869M | $716M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $88M | $317M | $1.6B | $752M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 9999.00x | -4.47x | -9.06x | -6.37x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 133.84x | 11.05x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 1354.23x | 23.75x | 8.63x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 0.40x | 0.32x | 3.52x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.30x | 1.31x | 1.35x | 7.50x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 10.55x | 3.72x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
NOEMU leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
NOEMU delivers a 1.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $2 in annual profit, vs $-147 for NRGV. NOEMU carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to AMN's 1.25x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CCRN scores 6/9 vs NRGV's 4/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +1.9% | -27.1% | -5.0% | -146.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.8% | -19.8% | -1.4% | -40.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -0.5% | -0.9% | +1.6% | -49.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -0.7% | -0.8% | +2.0% | -53.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.00x | 0.01x | 1.25x | 1.07x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$941,339 | -$106M | $769M | $36M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $953,069 | $109M | $34M | $58M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $11,730 | $2M | $803M | $95M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 156.21x | -1.39x | -1.70x | -10.33x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
NRGV leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in NOEMU five years ago would be worth $10,611 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,488 for AMN. Over the past 12 months, NRGV leads with a +447.1% total return vs CCRN's -5.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors NRGV at 34.0% vs AMN's -37.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -5.1% | +62.4% | +48.7% | -15.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +4.5% | -5.4% | +14.6% | +447.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +6.1% | -44.3% | -75.1% | +140.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +6.1% | -22.5% | -75.1% | -57.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +6.1% | -10.5% | -41.5% | -57.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +2.0% | -17.7% | -37.1% | +34.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — NOEMU and AMN each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
NOEMU is the less volatile stock with a -0.04 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than NRGV's 3.08 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. AMN currently trades 94.7% from its 52-week high vs NRGV's 65.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -0.21x | 0.78x | 1.12x | 3.08x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $11.88 | $14.99 | $23.74 | $6.35 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $10.13 | $7.43 | $14.87 | $0.65 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +89.1% | +87.3% | +94.7% | +65.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 62.6 | 53.1 | 57.2 | 53.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 26 | 552K | 849K | 3.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CCRN as "Hold", AMN as "Buy", NRGV as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 0.1% upside for AMN (target: $23) vs -33.6% for NRGV (target: $3).
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $10.61 | $22.50 | $2.75 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 14 | 17 | 7 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 1 | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +1.6% | +0.2% | 0.0% |
AMN leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). NOEMU leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 1 tied.
NOEMU vs CCRN vs AMN vs NRGV: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NOEMU or CCRN or AMN 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 -21. 6% for Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. (CCRN). CO2 Energy Transition Corp. Unit (NOEMU) offers the better valuation at 9999. 0x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. (AMN) a "Buy" — based on 17 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 — NOEMU or CCRN or AMN or NRGV?
On forward P/E, AMN Healthcare Services, Inc.
is actually cheaper at 11. 0x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — NOEMU or CCRN or AMN or NRGV?
Over the past 5 years, CO2 Energy Transition Corp.
Unit (NOEMU) delivered a total return of +6. 1%, compared to -75. 1% for AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. (AMN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NOEMU returned +18. 6% versus NRGV's -57. 1%. 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 — NOEMU or CCRN or AMN or NRGV?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), CO2 Energy Transition Corp.
Unit (NOEMU) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 21β versus Energy Vault Holdings, Inc. 's 3. 08β — meaning NRGV is approximately -1551% more volatile than NOEMU relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, CO2 Energy Transition Corp. Unit (NOEMU) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 125% for AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — NOEMU or CCRN or AMN or NRGV?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Energy Vault Holdings, Inc.
(NRGV) is pulling ahead at 340. 9% versus -21. 6% for Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. (CCRN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: CO2 Energy Transition Corp. Unit grew EPS 100. 3% year-over-year, compared to -565. 9% for Cross Country Healthcare, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, NRGV leads at 11. 8% 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 — NOEMU or CCRN or AMN or NRGV?
CO2 Energy Transition Corp.
Unit (NOEMU) is the more profitable company, earning 0. 0% net margin versus -50. 9% for Energy Vault Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 0. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AMN leads at 1. 2% versus -36. 5% for NRGV. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NRGV leads at 23. 6%, 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 NOEMU or CCRN or AMN or NRGV more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, AMN Healthcare Services, Inc.
(AMN) trades at 11. 0x forward P/E versus 133. 8x for Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. — 122. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for AMN: 0. 1% to $22. 50.
08Which pays a better dividend — NOEMU or CCRN or AMN 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 NOEMU or CCRN or AMN or NRGV better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, CO2 Energy Transition Corp.
Unit (NOEMU) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 21)). Energy Vault Holdings, Inc. (NRGV) carries a higher beta of 3. 08 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (NOEMU: +18. 6%, NRGV: -57. 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 NOEMU and CCRN and AMN and NRGV?
These companies operate in different sectors (NOEMU (Financial Services) and CCRN (Healthcare) and AMN (Healthcare) and NRGV (Utilities)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: NOEMU is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CCRN is a small-cap quality compounder stock; AMN is a small-cap quality compounder 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.