Loading…
Fitlife Brands Inc
How the company evolved, year by year. Revenue and debt come from the annual reports — for most companies, the 10-K filings with the SEC since 2009; dividends from the payments themselves.
The bars are a balance on the closing date; the lines are what happened during the year. Revenue above equity is ordinary, not an anomaly — it means the company turns its capital over more than once a year.
Major managers that reported this stock in their latest 13F.
▲ +37.1% over 5Y.
today you would have $1,410.29▲ +41.0%
Dividends reinvested, splits accounted for. Past prices say what happened, not what will.
The last 16 closed years. Each multiple uses that year’s closing price and that year’s reported numbers — not today’s. The range is set by the annual reports on record.
| Indicator | Median | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year-end price | $16.27 | $16.30 | $9.55 | $7.97 | $8.00 | $2.70 | $1.76 | $0.05 | $0.03 | $0.12 | $0.20 | $0.32 | $0.31 | $0.11 | $0.10 | $0.15 | |
| P/E | 17.6x |
Seven formulas applied to what the company reported. None of them predicts a price — each answers what the stock would be worth if its assumption held. The assumption is printed next to every number, because it is the assumption that produces the result.
Square root of 22.5 × earnings × book value — the two ceilings Graham proposed. Blind to intangibles, so it undervalues software and brands.
This formula has no meaning here — usually a loss, negative cash flow, or a missing input.
Median P/E of 17.7 among peers in the sector.
Median P/E of 17.6 across the years on record for this company itself. Answers whether it is cheap against its own past, which a whole sector trading low cannot flatter.
Cash flow growing 5.0% a year for 10 years, discounted at 10%, then 2.5% forever.
Sector median of 10.4x operating profit, less net debt. Sees the business before its financing, so debt does not distort the comparison. Banks have no EBITDA — interest is their revenue, not a cost.
Companies of similar size in Consumer Defensive, for comparison. The columns are the same ones above, in the same order.
| Stock | Price | P/E | P/B | Dividend yield | ROE | Market cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COE51Talk Online Education Group | $15.35 | — | — | — | — | $92.21M |
| SKINSkinHealth Systems Inc. | $0.69 | — | 1.6x | — | -43.89% | $89.15M |
| HFFGHF Foods Group Inc. | $1.80 | — | 0.5x | — | -15.29% | $97.02M |
| CHGGChegg Inc | $0.73 |
FitLife Brands, Inc. provides nutritional supplements and wellness products for health-conscious consumers in the United States and internationally. The company provides weight loss, sports nutrition, and general health products; general wellness products with an emphasis on natural, vegan, and organic ingredients; male health and weight loss products; energy products; general health supplements; and natural skincare and beauty products; supplements focused on targeted nutrition; supplements for weight loss, cleansing and sexual health, and total body wellness. It markets its products under the brand names of NDS Nutrition, PMD Sports, SirenLabs, CoreActive, Nutrology, Metis Nutrition, iSatori, BioGenetic Laboratories, Energize, Dr. Tobias, All-Natural Advice, Maritime Naturals, MusclePharm, Irwin Naturals, Applied Nutrition, and Nature's Secret through franchised stores, as well as through retail locations, which include specialty, mass, and online, and e-commerce platform. The company was formerly known as Bond Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to FitLife Brands, Inc. in September 2013. FitLife Brands, Inc. was incorporated in 2005 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.
Company description provided by Yahoo Finance.
| 25.8x |
| 17.9x |
| 17.7x |
| 17.9x |
| 14.2x |
| 0.7x |
| 1.5x |
| 1.2x |
| — |
| 23.7x |
| — |
| 13.0x |
| 17.5x |
| 30.0x |
| — |
| — |
| P/S | 1.0x | 1.9x | 2.4x | 1.7x | 2.5x | 2.6x | 0.3x | 0.8x | 0.3x | 0.1x | 0.4x | 1.0x | 1.1x | 1.0x | 0.4x | 0.5x | 1.1x |
| P/B | 3.2x | 3.5x | 4.2x | 3.2x | 3.3x | 4.2x | 0.5x | 4.9x | 2.2x | 2.9x | 10.9x | 1.7x | 3.2x | 4.1x | 1.2x | 1.9x | 2.9x |
| EPS | $0.63 | $0.91 | $0.54 | $0.45 | $0.57 | $3.88 | $1.17 | $0.05 | -$0.12 | $0.01 | -$0.02 | $0.03 | $0.02 | $0.00 | $0.00 | -$0.06 |
| Profit margin | 8.08% | 7.77% | 13.94% | 10.05% | 15.38% | 19.38% | 39.91% | 13.39% | 2.98% | 2.86% | 1.45% | -6.50% | 8.38% | 6.57% | 13.95% | 2.70% | -39.00% |
| ROE | 24.90% | 14.50% | 24.87% | 19.59% | 20.71% | 31.19% | 74.32% | 84.99% | 23.89% | 55.81% | 40.36% | -11.53% | 24.93% | 26.88% | 43.48% | 10.19% | -106.63% |
Median, not average: a single year of near-zero profit produces a P/E of 400 and would drag an average on its own. P/E years above 200x are left out, the same cut the fair price uses — so this median matches the “its own history” method below. Price and EPS have no median: they are series that grow.
This formula has no meaning here — usually a loss, negative cash flow, or a missing input.
Not the average of the seven numbers above. Four of the seven start from the same earnings per share — Graham, Lynch, sector multiples and its own history — so averaging all seven would let one input count four times and drown out the others. Instead each family produces one number, and the fair price is the average of the families that answered. A family with two working formulas contributes their average, not two votes.
5 methods answered, across 3 families.
Every formula reads the same reported statements and they can be wrong together. The margin is room for that.
-13.1% from the average.
These are models, not forecasts, and not investment advice. Change one assumption and the number changes with it — that is a property of valuation, not a defect of this page.
| — |
| 0.7x |
| — |
| -38.34% |
| $81.57M |
| ISPRIspire Technology Inc. | $1.42 | — | — | — | — | $81.51M |
| ZVIAZevia PBC | $1.44 | — | 2.3x | — | -26.54% | $103.88M |