Medical - Devices
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
POAS vs CLFD vs AAOI vs LITE
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Communication Equipment
Semiconductors
Communication Equipment
POAS vs CLFD vs AAOI vs LITE — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Devices | Communication Equipment | Semiconductors | Communication Equipment |
| Market Cap | $32M | $618M | $14.86B | $70.86B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $2M | $136M | $507M | $2.49B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-2M | $-9M | $-43M | $440M |
| Gross Margin | 47.7% | 37.2% | 29.6% | 37.7% |
| Operating Margin | -132.9% | 1.4% | -11.6% | 9.5% |
| Forward P/E | — | 85.6x | 201.4x | 120.9x |
| Total Debt | $793K | $9M | $167M | $2.61B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $2M | $21M | $216M | $521M |
POAS vs CLFD vs AAOI vs LITE — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clearfield, Inc. (CLFD) | 100 | 326.5 | +226.5% |
| Applied Optoelectro… (AAOI) | 100 | 2132.3 | +2032.3% |
| Lumentum Holdings I… (LITE) | 100 | 1353.5 | +1253.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: POAS vs CLFD vs AAOI vs LITE
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
POAS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and growth exposure is your priority.
- beta 0.14
- Rev growth 189.3%, EPS growth 100.0%
- 189.3% revenue growth vs CLFD's 19.6%
- Beta 0.14 vs AAOI's 4.10
CLFD is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.74, Low D/E 3.4%, current ratio 5.42x
- Beta 1.74, current ratio 5.42x
- Lower P/E (85.6x vs 120.9x)
AAOI lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
LITE carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for long-term compounding.
- 40.5% 10Y total return vs AAOI's 20.3%
- 17.7% margin vs POAS's -125.3%
- +12.8% vs POAS's -39.0%
- 8.5% ROA vs POAS's -71.9%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 189.3% revenue growth vs CLFD's 19.6% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (85.6x vs 120.9x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 17.7% margin vs POAS's -125.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.14 vs AAOI's 4.10 | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 4 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +12.8% vs POAS's -39.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 8.5% ROA vs POAS's -71.9% |
POAS vs CLFD vs AAOI vs LITE — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
POAS vs CLFD vs AAOI vs LITE — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CLFD leads in 2 of 6 categories
LITE leads 1 • AAOI leads 1 • POAS leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
LITE leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
LITE is the larger business by revenue, generating $2.5B annually — 1321.6x POAS's $2M. LITE is the more profitable business, keeping 17.7% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to POAS's -125.3%. On growth, LITE holds the edge at +90.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $2M | $136M | $507M | $2.5B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | — | $6M | -$37M | $425M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | — | -$9M | -$43M | $440M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | — | $16M | -$239M | $399M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +47.7% | +37.2% | +29.6% | +37.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -132.9% | +1.4% | -11.6% | +9.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -125.3% | -6.3% | -8.5% | +17.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -91.9% | +11.8% | -47.1% | +16.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -27.1% | +51.4% | +90.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -142.5% | -5.6% | +3.3% |
Valuation Metrics
CLFD leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
On an enterprise value basis, CLFD's 73.5x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than LITE's 952.3x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $32M | $618M | $14.9B | $70.9B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $31M | $605M | $14.8B | $72.9B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | — | -77.84x | -294.19x | 2682.08x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 85.59x | 201.43x | 120.90x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 73.45x | — | 952.25x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 21.75x | 4.12x | 32.62x | 43.07x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 2.47x | 15.44x | 60.87x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 25.01x | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
CLFD leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
LITE delivers a 30.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $31 in annual profit, vs $-81 for POAS. CLFD carries lower financial leverage with a 0.03x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to LITE's 2.30x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CLFD scores 7/9 vs AAOI's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -80.8% | -3.4% | -6.1% | +30.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -71.9% | -3.0% | -3.8% | +8.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | +0.6% | -7.9% | -4.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -6.5% | +0.8% | -8.5% | -4.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.27x | 0.03x | 0.23x | 2.30x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$2M | -$13M | -$49M | $2.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $2M | $21M | $216M | $521M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $792,580 | $9M | $167M | $2.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -57.49x | 65.80x | -38.76x | 9.62x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
AAOI leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in AAOI five years ago would be worth $264,067 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,104 for POAS. Over the past 12 months, LITE leads with a +1283.5% total return vs POAS's -39.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors AAOI at 3.8% vs POAS's -15.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -25.6% | +53.1% | +375.5% | +157.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -39.0% | +24.2% | +932.2% | +1283.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -39.0% | +25.0% | +11040.8% | +2250.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -39.0% | +35.3% | +2540.7% | +1354.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -39.0% | +155.7% | +2029.9% | +4052.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -15.2% | +7.7% | +3.8% | +186.5% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — POAS and CLFD each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
POAS is the less volatile stock with a 0.14 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than AAOI's 4.10 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CLFD currently trades 96.6% from its 52-week high vs POAS's 31.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.14x | 1.74x | 4.10x | 2.66x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $7.39 | $46.76 | $208.00 | $1085.68 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.53 | $24.01 | $15.06 | $69.26 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +31.8% | +96.6% | +90.5% | +91.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 61.9 | 86.7 | 61.1 | 65.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 400K | 194K | 12.3M | 6.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CLFD as "Buy", AAOI as "Buy", LITE as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply -4.0% upside for CLFD (target: $43) vs -60.4% for AAOI (target: $75).
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $43.33 | $74.50 | $918.67 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 8 | 16 | 25 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +7.0% | +2.7% | 0.0% | +0.1% |
CLFD leads in 2 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Profitability & Efficiency). LITE leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 1 tied.
POAS vs CLFD vs AAOI vs LITE: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is POAS or CLFD or AAOI or LITE a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Phaos Technology Holdings (Cayman) Limited (POAS) is the stronger pick with 189.
3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 19. 6% for Clearfield, Inc. (CLFD). Lumentum Holdings Inc. (LITE) offers the better valuation at 2682. 1x trailing P/E (120. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Clearfield, Inc. (CLFD) a "Buy" — based on 8 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 — POAS or CLFD or AAOI or LITE?
On forward P/E, Clearfield, Inc.
is actually cheaper at 85. 6x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — POAS or CLFD or AAOI or LITE?
Over the past 5 years, Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
(AAOI) delivered a total return of +25. 4%, compared to -39. 0% for Phaos Technology Holdings (Cayman) Limited (POAS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: LITE returned +40. 5% versus POAS's -39. 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 — POAS or CLFD or AAOI or LITE?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Phaos Technology Holdings (Cayman) Limited (POAS) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
14β versus Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. 's 4. 10β — meaning AAOI is approximately 2800% more volatile than POAS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Clearfield, Inc. (CLFD) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 3% versus 2% for Lumentum Holdings Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — POAS or CLFD or AAOI or LITE?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Phaos Technology Holdings (Cayman) Limited (POAS) is pulling ahead at 189.
3% versus 19. 6% for Clearfield, Inc. (CLFD). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Lumentum Holdings Inc. grew EPS 104. 6% year-over-year, compared to 31. 8% for Clearfield, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, AAOI leads at 26. 9% 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 — POAS or CLFD or AAOI or LITE?
Lumentum Holdings Inc.
(LITE) is the more profitable company, earning 1. 6% net margin versus -125. 3% for Phaos Technology Holdings (Cayman) Limited — meaning it keeps 1. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CLFD leads at 1. 4% versus -132. 9% for POAS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — POAS leads at 47. 7%, 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 POAS or CLFD or AAOI or LITE more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Clearfield, Inc.
(CLFD) trades at 85. 6x forward P/E versus 201. 4x for Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. — 115. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CLFD: -4. 0% to $43. 33.
08Which pays a better dividend — POAS or CLFD or AAOI or LITE?
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 POAS or CLFD or AAOI or LITE better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Phaos Technology Holdings (Cayman) Limited (POAS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
14)). Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. (AAOI) carries a higher beta of 4. 10 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (POAS: -39. 0%, AAOI: +20. 3%), 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 POAS and CLFD and AAOI and LITE?
These companies operate in different sectors (POAS (Healthcare) and CLFD (Technology) and AAOI (Technology) and LITE (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
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.