VIVC Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Massimo Group has a net margin of 16.52% compared to Vivic's net margin of -14.02%. Vivic's return on equity of 185.07% beat Massimo Group's return on equity of -16.39%.

Vivic has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Massimo Group has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Vivic has higher upside potential than Massimo Group, analysts believe Vivic is more attractive than Massimo Group.

Vivic has a beta of 0.112, which suggesting that the stock is 88.83% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Massimo Group has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

Vivic has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Massimo Group offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Vivic pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Massimo Group pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Vivic quarterly revenues are $2.6M, which are smaller than Massimo Group quarterly revenues of $14.9M. Vivic's net income of $425.2K is higher than Massimo Group's net income of -$2.1M. Notably, Vivic's price-to-earnings ratio is 45.55x while Massimo Group's PE ratio is 30.38x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Vivic is 0.36x versus 1.19x for Massimo Group. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Polaris has a net margin of 16.52% compared to Vivic's net margin of -4.35%. Vivic's return on equity of 185.07% beat Polaris's return on equity of 3.05%.

Vivic has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Polaris has an analysts' consensus of $38.08 which suggests that it could fall by -20.86%. Given that Polaris has higher upside potential than Vivic, analysts believe Polaris is more attractive than Vivic.

Vivic has a beta of 0.112, which suggesting that the stock is 88.83% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Polaris has a beta of 1.047, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 4.655%.

Vivic has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Polaris offers a yield of 5.53% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.67 per share. Vivic pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Polaris pays out 133.3% of its earnings as a dividend.

Vivic quarterly revenues are $2.6M, which are smaller than Polaris quarterly revenues of $1.5B. Vivic's net income of $425.2K is higher than Polaris's net income of -$66.8M. Notably, Vivic's price-to-earnings ratio is 45.55x while Polaris's PE ratio is 66.83x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Vivic is 0.36x versus 0.39x for Polaris. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Tesla has a net margin of 16.52% compared to Vivic's net margin of 2.12%. Vivic's return on equity of 185.07% beat Tesla's return on equity of 9.1%.

Vivic has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Tesla has an analysts' consensus of $304.17 which suggests that it could fall by -3.06%. Given that Tesla has higher upside potential than Vivic, analysts believe Tesla is more attractive than Vivic.

Vivic has a beta of 0.112, which suggesting that the stock is 88.83% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Tesla has a beta of 2.394, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 139.423%.

Vivic has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Tesla offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Vivic pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Tesla pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Vivic quarterly revenues are $2.6M, which are smaller than Tesla quarterly revenues of $19.3B. Vivic's net income of $425.2K is lower than Tesla's net income of $409M. Notably, Vivic's price-to-earnings ratio is 45.55x while Tesla's PE ratio is 174.12x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Vivic is 0.36x versus 11.61x for Tesla. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Twin Vee PowerCats has a net margin of 16.52% compared to Vivic's net margin of -44.58%. Vivic's return on equity of 185.07% beat Twin Vee PowerCats's return on equity of -47.22%.

Vivic has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Twin Vee PowerCats has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could grow by 3304.26%. Given that Twin Vee PowerCats has higher upside potential than Vivic, analysts believe Twin Vee PowerCats is more attractive than Vivic.

Vivic has a beta of 0.112, which suggesting that the stock is 88.83% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Twin Vee PowerCats has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

Vivic has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Twin Vee PowerCats offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Vivic pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Twin Vee PowerCats pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Vivic quarterly revenues are $2.6M, which are smaller than Twin Vee PowerCats quarterly revenues of $3.6M. Vivic's net income of $425.2K is higher than Twin Vee PowerCats's net income of -$1.6M. Notably, Vivic's price-to-earnings ratio is 45.55x while Twin Vee PowerCats's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Vivic is 0.36x versus 0.21x for Twin Vee PowerCats. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.