Core Laboratories N.V.

Fundamentals6.0
Price Action6.0
News Sentiment5.0
AI Rating
5.0

Key Drivers

  • Improved margins
  • Weak cash conversion
  • High absolute debt

AI
AI Summary

5.0

CLB's investment pivot hinges on whether recent margin gains actually convert into sustainable free cash flow—watch quarterly FCF run-rate and two consecutive-quarter improvement in DSOs/inventory turns, and expect management to prioritize debt reduction over buybacks if FCF remains weak, because persistent working‑capital erosion will quickly invalidate the current premium valuation.

CashFocus
WorkingCapital
Valuation‍

Price Chart

Loading chart...

Financial Metrics

-
Revenue (TTM)
-
Net Income (TTM)
-
EPS (Q)
-
MCAP

Deep Analysis

Research tool. Not personalized advice.

Fundamental Analysis

6.0

Key Financial Insights:

  • Improved margins
  • Weak cash conversion
  • High absolute debt

CLB's margins and liquidity have improved, but a sharp recent fall in quarterly free cash flow and substantial absolute debt limit upside despite mid‑range valuation.

SteadyProfitability
HighDebt

Price Behavior

6.0
Research tool. Not personalized advice. Technical analysis is for informational purposes only.

Key Price Behavior Insights:

  • Below SMA
  • Lower closes
  • Support testing

CLB has shown short-term weakness, falling about 12% over the last month to close below the last-month SMA (~$16.69), signaling near-term bearish momentum unless it reclaims that average or breaks above the $18.3–$18.6 resistance.

Bearish
Watchlist
Support Level: $15.77
Resistance Level: $18.3–$18.6

~12% pullback from $18.42 to $16.21 over the last month

Sentiment & News

5.0

Key News Insights:

  • Post‑earnings decline
  • 200‑day rebound
  • Peer‑value debate

CLB plunged after earnings but has since crossed back above its 200‑day MA amid renewed peer‑valuation debate, pointing to short‑term volatility and active reassessment.

volatility
rebound

Expect elevated near‑term volatility as traders weigh the technical rebound against earnings‑driven weakness and relative‑valuation comparisons