Internal ReturnAskSign in
valuationfundamentalsequitybuilt-inused 4×

Fundamental valuation

Revenue, margins, cash flow and balance-sheet health with a view on whether the current price is supported by fundamentals.

Fork this skill
Instructions the executor receives

Pull 5–8 years of annual income statements, balance sheets and cash flows plus key metrics. Chart revenue, gross margin, operating margin, free cash flow and net debt. Assess growth quality, margin trajectory, capital intensity and leverage. Compare current P/E, EV/EBITDA and FCF yield with the company's own history. Conclude with whether fundamentals support the current price and the two or three variables that matter most. Cite every number you use. Prefer primary data (financial statements, filings, official statistics) over commentary. When you show a time series, put it in a chart block via a dataRef and let the stats engine describe its shape; then interpret the shape in the bullets. State plainly what you could not verify.

Expects
ticker
Tools it tends to use
fmp_financialsfmp_metricsfmp_quotestats_analyze

Rate this skill

Higher-rated skills are chosen first when several fit.

No ratings yet

Analyses using this skill

AnalysisNBISCRWVSep 9, 2026

Fundamental valuation: NBIS vs CoreWeave

Nebius (NBIS, $243.88, ~$58.5B market cap) has genuinely inflected: revenue grew from ~$0.5B to ~$1.8B across the 8-year window, operating income swung from a ~$0.6B loss to ~$0.3B profit, and net income rose to ~$0.66B, with gross profit up to ~$1.3B (FMP income statement). But the balance sheet is being stretched to fund AI capex — total debt jumped from ~$0.28B to ~$4.97B against ~$3.68B cash (~$1.3B net debt) — and at ~33x EV/Sales and ~89x P/E the price already embeds aggressive forward growth (consensus ~$58B revenue by 2030). CoreWeave (CRWV, $99.83, ~$54.5B) is a larger, more levered, higher-beta (7.4) neocloud with bigger scale and backlog but a weaker historical P&L. NBIS is the cleaner fundamental (better margins, lower leverage, now profitable); the price is supported by the trajectory but is not cheap, and it hinges on backlog conversion, customer concentration (Microsoft) and FCF breakeven timing.

Moderate confidence · 55%Unratedagent E2E agent
AnalysisAMDINTCSep 9, 2026

AMD vs Intel: five-year revenue growth and operating margins

AMD grew revenue 111% from FY2021 to FY2025 ($16.4B → $34.6B) while Intel's revenue contracted 33% ($79.0B → $52.9B). AMD's operating margin followed a U-shape, bottoming at 1.8% in FY2023 before recovering to 10.7% in FY2025; Intel's margin collapsed to -22.0% in FY2024 and only returned to breakeven (-0.04%) in FY2025. AMD clearly had stronger revenue growth and a more resilient margin trajectory over the five-year window, with FY2025 marking a notable inflection for both companies (AMD's best growth year, Intel's first near-stable year).

High confidence · 92%Unratedagent E2E agent
AnalysisCRWVNBISSep 9, 2026

Fundamental growth and balance-sheet durability

CoreWeave (CRWV, ~$54.5B mkt cap at $99.83) and Nebius (NBIS, ~$58.5B mkt cap at $243.88) are both hyper-growth 'neocloud' GPU-cloud businesses, but their balance-sheet durability diverges sharply. NBIS entered 2025 net-cash (FY2024 net debt -$2.40B, cash $2.45B) and only recently began levering up (FY2025 net debt +$1.30B, total debt $4.97B), giving it a far stronger funding cushion. CRWV is structurally debt-funded with heavy capex and negative free cash flow, so its growth is only as durable as its access to capital markets and customer concentration. On fundamentals alone, NBIS has the more durable earnings path today; CRWV's durability hinges on margin expansion and de-risking its balance sheet. Both are priced for sustained multi-year growth and carry high single-digit-to-double-digit beta, so execution and AI-capex demand are the swing factors.

Moderate confidence · 55%Unratedby Cesar Lee
AnalysisCRWVSep 8, 2026

Fundamental valuation of CRWV

CoreWeave (CRWV) at $99.83 (market cap ~$54.5B, EV ~$80B after ~$25.9B net debt) is priced for flawless execution and is expensive on fundamentals. FY2025 revenue was $5.13B (+~320% over the period) with a 71.7% gross margin and ~48% EBITDA margin, but the company still posted a $1.17B net loss, burned $7.25B of free cash flow, and carries $29.8B of debt against only $3.95B of cash. A conservative base-case DCF (11% WACC, 4% terminal growth, FCF at 55% of EBITDA) yields ~$53/share, implying ~47% downside; a defensible fundamental range is roughly $30–$90, so the current price sits at/above the top. The three variables that decide the outcome are (1) the 67% Microsoft customer concentration, (2) capex/debt sustainability and FCF conversion, and (3) EBITDA-margin durability as the GPU fleet depreciates.

Moderate confidence · 55%Unratedagent E2E agent