Electrical Equipment & Parts
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
XPON vs GNSS vs CBAT vs NRGV vs FLUX
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Hardware, Equipment & Parts
Electrical Equipment & Parts
Renewable Utilities
Electrical Equipment & Parts
XPON vs GNSS vs CBAT vs NRGV vs FLUX — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Electrical Equipment & Parts | Hardware, Equipment & Parts | Electrical Equipment & Parts | Renewable Utilities | Electrical Equipment & Parts |
| Market Cap | $422K | $90M | $70M | $716M | $23M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $9M | $51M | $162M | $217M | $51M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-2M | $-15M | $-7M | $-115M | $-6M |
| Gross Margin | 21.8% | 43.2% | 10.8% | 22.1% | 32.1% |
| Operating Margin | -70.9% | -22.1% | -10.5% | -35.8% | -1.9% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 6.0x | — | — |
| Total Debt | $1M | $21M | $30M | $95M | $16M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $548K | $8M | $7M | $58M | $1M |
XPON vs GNSS vs CBAT vs NRGV vs FLUX — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Apr 22 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expion360 Inc. (XPON) | 100 | 0.2 | -99.8% |
| Genasys Inc. (GNSS) | 100 | 63.7 | -36.3% |
| CBAK Energy Technol… (CBAT) | 100 | 70.7 | -29.3% |
| Energy Vault Holdin… (NRGV) | 100 | 29.8 | -70.2% |
| Flux Power Holdings… (FLUX) | 100 | 56.8 | -43.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: XPON vs GNSS vs CBAT vs NRGV vs FLUX
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
XPON lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
GNSS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.87
- 14.9% 10Y total return vs NRGV's -57.1%
- Beta 0.87 vs XPON's 3.34
CBAT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.05, Low D/E 25.1%, current ratio 0.82x
- Beta 1.05, current ratio 0.82x
- -4.0% margin vs NRGV's -53.0%
- -2.0% ROA vs NRGV's -40.3%, ROIC 4.6% vs -49.5%
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 CBAT's -13.6%
- +447.1% vs FLUX's -31.9%
Among these 5 stocks, FLUX doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 340.9% revenue growth vs CBAT's -13.6% | |
| Quality / Margins | -4.0% margin vs NRGV's -53.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.87 vs XPON's 3.34 | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 5 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +447.1% vs FLUX's -31.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | -2.0% ROA vs NRGV's -40.3%, ROIC 4.6% vs -49.5% |
XPON vs GNSS vs CBAT vs NRGV vs FLUX — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
XPON vs GNSS vs CBAT vs NRGV vs FLUX — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CBAT leads in 2 of 6 categories
XPON leads 1 • NRGV leads 1 • GNSS leads 1 • FLUX leads 0
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CBAT leads this category, winning 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NRGV is the larger business by revenue, generating $217M annually — 23.0x XPON's $9M. CBAT is the more profitable business, keeping -4.0% 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 | $9M | $51M | $162M | $217M | $51M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$7M | -$9M | -$8M | -$72M | -$212,000 |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$2M | -$15M | -$7M | -$115M | -$6M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$7M | -$3M | -$8M | -$98M | -$7M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +21.8% | +43.2% | +10.8% | +22.1% | +32.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -70.9% | -22.1% | -10.5% | -35.8% | -1.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -21.8% | -29.2% | -4.0% | -53.0% | -12.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -70.6% | -5.3% | -5.1% | -45.2% | -14.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +72.2% | +145.9% | +36.5% | +156.4% | -60.6% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +100.4% | +78.0% | — | -42.9% | -25.0% |
Valuation Metrics
XPON leads this category, winning 2 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $422,426 | $90M | $70M | $716M | $23M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $903,948 | $104M | $94M | $752M | $37M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.03x | -5.00x | 6.04x | -6.37x | -3.25x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | 5.22x | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.08x | 2.22x | 0.40x | 3.52x | 0.34x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.17x | 41.58x | 0.59x | 7.50x | — |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 3.13x | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
CBAT leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CBAT delivers a -5.5% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-6 in annual profit, vs $-8 for GNSS. CBAT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.25x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to GNSS's 9.85x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CBAT scores 7/9 vs GNSS's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -22.7% | -8.2% | -5.5% | -146.8% | -7.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -19.2% | -22.0% | -2.0% | -40.3% | -21.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -97.6% | -56.7% | +4.6% | -49.5% | -30.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -121.2% | -68.2% | +7.0% | -53.7% | — |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.41x | 9.85x | 0.25x | 1.07x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $481,522 | $13M | $23M | $36M | $15M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $547,565 | $8M | $7M | $58M | $1M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1M | $21M | $30M | $95M | $16M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -108.10x | -31.66x | -24.86x | -10.33x | -2.64x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
NRGV leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in NRGV five years ago would be worth $4,233 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $8 for XPON. Over the past 12 months, NRGV leads with a +447.1% total return vs FLUX's -31.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors NRGV at 34.0% vs XPON's -89.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -18.6% | -8.3% | -8.7% | -15.3% | -8.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -23.9% | +2.6% | -6.9% | +447.1% | -31.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.9% | -31.3% | +2.0% | +140.7% | -66.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.9% | -66.7% | -81.0% | -57.7% | -86.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.9% | +14.9% | -69.9% | -57.1% | -69.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -89.5% | -11.8% | +0.7% | +34.0% | -30.3% |
Risk & Volatility
GNSS leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
GNSS is the less volatile stock with a 0.87 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than XPON's 3.34 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. GNSS currently trades 74.1% from its 52-week high vs XPON's 12.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 3.34x | 0.87x | 1.05x | 3.08x | 2.30x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $5.50 | $2.70 | $1.25 | $6.35 | $7.55 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.49 | $1.40 | $0.77 | $0.65 | $0.97 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +12.0% | +74.1% | +62.8% | +65.2% | +17.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 44.5 | 59.9 | 39.6 | 53.3 | 57.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 195K | 95K | 111K | 3.7M | 114K |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | — | — | Buy | — |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | — | — | $2.75 | — |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | — | — | 7 | — |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 1 | 1 | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
CBAT leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). XPON leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics).
XPON vs GNSS vs CBAT vs NRGV vs FLUX: Key Questions Answered
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is XPON or GNSS or CBAT or NRGV or FLUX 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 -13. 6% for CBAK Energy Technology, Inc. (CBAT). CBAK Energy Technology, Inc. (CBAT) offers the better valuation at 6. 0x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Energy Vault Holdings, Inc. (NRGV) a "Buy" — based on 7 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 — XPON or GNSS or CBAT or NRGV or FLUX?
Over the past 5 years, Energy Vault Holdings, Inc.
(NRGV) delivered a total return of -57. 7%, compared to -99. 9% for Expion360 Inc. (XPON). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GNSS returned +14. 9% versus XPON's -99. 9%. 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 — XPON or GNSS or CBAT or NRGV or FLUX?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Genasys Inc.
(GNSS) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 87β versus Expion360 Inc. 's 3. 34β — meaning XPON is approximately 285% more volatile than GNSS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, CBAK Energy Technology, Inc. (CBAT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 25% versus 10% for Genasys Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — XPON or GNSS or CBAT or NRGV or FLUX?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Energy Vault Holdings, Inc.
(NRGV) is pulling ahead at 340. 9% versus -13. 6% for CBAK Energy Technology, Inc. (CBAT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: CBAK Energy Technology, Inc. grew EPS 574. 5% year-over-year, compared to -1847. 2% for Expion360 Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CBAT leads at 49. 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 — XPON or GNSS or CBAT or NRGV or FLUX?
CBAK Energy Technology, Inc.
(CBAT) is the more profitable company, earning 6. 7% net margin versus -239. 6% for Expion360 Inc. — meaning it keeps 6. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CBAT leads at 5. 0% versus -120. 1% for XPON. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — GNSS leads at 41. 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.
06Which pays a better dividend — XPON or GNSS or CBAT or NRGV or FLUX?
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.
07Is XPON or GNSS or CBAT or NRGV or FLUX better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Genasys Inc.
(GNSS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 87)). Expion360 Inc. (XPON) carries a higher beta of 3. 34 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (GNSS: +14. 9%, XPON: -99. 9%), 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 XPON and GNSS and CBAT and NRGV and FLUX?
These companies operate in different sectors (XPON (Industrials) and GNSS (Technology) and CBAT (Industrials) and NRGV (Utilities) and FLUX (Industrials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: XPON is a small-cap quality compounder stock; GNSS is a small-cap high-growth stock; CBAT is a small-cap deep-value stock; NRGV is a small-cap high-growth stock; FLUX is a small-cap quality compounder 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.