Filing Flows › Companies › Azenta › Analysis traps
Azenta (AZTA): analysis traps
Where its figures could mislead a reader, and what to check before taking them at face value · Data: Q3 FY26, to Jun 30, 2026, filed Aug 6, 2026; rules v1.1
Azenta (AZTA): 2 rules of 10 triggered on the filings to Jun 30, 2026: stock compensation added back = no economic cost; FCF growth = the business improved. 1 to review; 2 with insufficient data; 4 not applicable. Each is a question to verify, with the normal explanation that would produce the same figures.
Check these first
Stock compensation added back = no economic cost Triggered · severity medium · confidence high
Stock compensation was $21M, 3.5% of revenue, in FY25; buybacks were $0 (0.0× the SBC) and buybacks did not cover it. 'Adjusted' figures that add SBC back treat pay in shares as free; the cost is borne by every shareholder as dilution, or by the cash spent to buy the shares back.
Innocent reading: A young company paying in equity while it scales; intensity falls as revenue grows.
FCF growth = the business improved Triggered · severity medium · confidence medium
Free cash flow rose $26M (+210%), from $12M to $38M, but working capital released $19M more cash than the year before and capital expenditure fell by $4M: 89% of the increase came from sources that need not repeat. Operating cash flow before working capital rose by $3M.
Innocent reading: An expansion programme finished, so capex fell back to maintenance levels for good.
Adjusted profit = economic profit To review · confidence low
Adjusted EPS was 10% or more above GAAP in 2 of the last 3 quarters: read the reconciliation before taking the adjusted figure.
Every rule
A01 FCF growth = the business improved Triggered severity medium · confidence medium
Free cash flow rose $26M (+210%), from $12M to $38M, but working capital released $19M more cash than the year before and capital expenditure fell by $4M: 89% of the increase came from sources that need not repeat. Operating cash flow before working capital rose by $3M.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year before | FY24 |
| Fiscal year | FY25 |
| Operating cash flow, year before | $50M |
| Operating cash flow | $72M |
| Capex, year before | $37M |
| Capex | $34M |
| Free cash flow, year before | $12M |
| Free cash flow | $38M |
| Change in FCF | $26M |
| Change in capex | −$4M |
| Working capital: change in its cash contribution | $19M |
| Of which: capex cut | $4M |
| Of which: working capital released | $19M |
| Share of the increase that need not repeat | +88.6% |
| Operating cash flow before working capital: change | 2963000.00 |
FCF = operating cash flow − cash capex; ΔFCF = ΔOCF − ΔCapEx; the working-capital part is the change in the cash-bridge items (receivables, inventory, payables, accruals), with the sign of the cash flow statement
Source: FY25 (cash flow statement, fiscal year) · FY24 (cash flow statement, fiscal year before)
What would explain it innocently
- An expansion programme finished, so capex fell back to maintenance levels for good
- Suppliers agreed longer payment terms in a contract
- Inventory was brought down after a glut and will stay down
What to look for in the filing
- Maintenance capex (what it costs to keep the assets working)
- Supplier payment terms and any supply-chain financing
- Management's capex guidance for next year
What would show the trap does not apply
- Next year's FCF holds or rises with capex back at its earlier level and working capital no longer releasing cash
- The 10-K's capex guidance and the segment capex show the cut is a completed programme, not deferral
- The working-capital release matches a disclosed change in terms or a divestiture, not stretched payables or a collection push
Look again: next filing.
A07 Stock compensation added back = no economic cost Triggered severity medium · confidence high
Stock compensation was $21M, 3.5% of revenue, in FY25; buybacks were $0 (0.0× the SBC) and buybacks did not cover it. 'Adjusted' figures that add SBC back treat pay in shares as free; the cost is borne by every shareholder as dilution, or by the cash spent to buy the shares back.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year | FY25 |
| Stock compensation | $21M |
| Revenue | $594M |
| SBC / revenue | +3.5% |
| Buybacks | 0 |
| Buybacks / SBC | 0.0 |
| Diluted shares, year before | 53.2M shares |
| Diluted shares | 45.9M shares |
| Diluted shares: change | -13.7% |
SBC / revenue from the cash flow statement's add-back; the diluted weighted share count year over year; buybacks from the financing section
Source: FY25 (stock compensation, buybacks and the diluted share count, fiscal year)
What would explain it innocently
- A young company paying in equity while it scales; intensity falls as revenue grows
- Buybacks at prices below intrinsic value make up for the dilution over time
- A one-off grant (an acquisition, a founder award) rather than a steady level
What to look for in the filing
- The share count after the latest buybacks (the next 10-Q's cover)
- The price paid for the buybacks against the shares' value
- Unvested awards outstanding
What would show the trap does not apply
- The diluted share count falls over two years with buybacks at least equal to the stock compensation
- Stock compensation falls as a share of revenue in each of the next two years
Look again: next filing.
B02 Receivables growing = future cash is certain Not triggered confidence medium
Receivables grew 15% against revenue 12% in Q3 FY26; DSO 78 against a median of 88: collections are keeping pace with sales.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter | Q3 FY26 |
| Revenue, year over year | +12.0% |
| Receivables, year over year | +15.4% |
| Quarter before | Q2 FY26 |
| Revenue y/y, quarter before | +1.0% |
| Receivables y/y, quarter before | -10.6% |
| Days sales outstanding | 77.6 |
| DSO, median of eight quarters | 88.0 |
| Receivables | $144M |
| Revenue | $161M |
receivables and revenue against the same quarter a year earlier; DSO = receivables / quarterly revenue × days, against the median of the eight quarters before
Source: Q3 FY26 (receivables and revenue) · Q3 FY25 (the same quarter a year earlier)
B08 Adjusted profit = economic profit To review confidence low
Adjusted EPS was 10% or more above GAAP in 2 of the last 3 quarters: read the reconciliation before taking the adjusted figure.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter / adjusted EPS / GAAP EPS / gap | 2025-09-30 / 0.21 / 1.11 / -4.286; 2025-12-31 / 0.09 / -0.34 / 4.778; 2026-06-30 / 0.16 / 0.05 / 0.688 |
| Quarters with adjusted ≥ 10% above GAAP | 2 |
| Quarters compared | 3 |
| Latest gap | +68.8% |
the analysts' 'actual' (usually the company's adjusted EPS) against GAAP net income ÷ diluted shares for the matching quarter; a gap of 10% or more counts (the stand-in until three releases' reconciliation tables are on file)
Source: 2025-09-30 (adjusted 0.21 vs GAAP 1.11) · 2025-12-31 (adjusted 0.09 vs GAAP -0.34) · 2026-06-30 (adjusted 0.16 vs GAAP 0.05)
What would show the trap does not apply
- The reconciliation shows the excluded items ending (a restructuring with its final charge, a settlement paid) and the gap to GAAP closes in the next quarters
- The excluded items are only amortisation of acquired intangibles and the cash paid for the deals is in the investing cash flow
Look again: next filing.
C02 Low net debt = no refinancing risk Insufficient data
no debt figure could be read from the balance sheet (the filing may tag it in other lines)
D03 EPS growth = profit growth Not applicable
a loss in one of the quarters: EPS growth has no meaning
E02 Low P/E at a cyclical peak = undervalued Not applicable
a loss on a trailing or mid-cycle basis: the P/E has no meaning
E07 A precise DCF value = the true value Insufficient data
no DCF in the valuation research for this company
J06 A bank's low P/E and high profit = safe Not applicable
not a bank
J08 A REIT's low net income = the dividend is unsafe Not applicable
not a REIT
What the statuses mean
Triggered: the filings show the pattern; read the normal explanations and the missing evidence before concluding anything. To review: one quarter or a weak signal; a reader's judgement, not a pattern. Not triggered: the pattern is absent on these figures. Insufficient data: the filings read so far do not hold what the rule needs; this is not a clean bill. Not applicable: the rule is not meant for this kind of company (a bank's working capital, a loss-making quarter's EPS growth). Out of date: the latest filing is more than fifteen months old.
Severity is what the pattern could mean for cash, value or solvency; confidence is how reliable the inputs and the reading are. The two are kept apart.
Record a view
A reader's judgement, grounds, what would change it and the next review; kept in the browser (needs JavaScript).
Every rule and the companies it triggers on → Azenta: cash flow → Earnings quality score →
Each rule reads the company's own filings by a fixed formula and says what would explain the same figures innocently. A triggered rule is a question to verify, not a finding of manipulation, and not a view on the stock. Missing data is shown as missing, never as clear. Not investment advice.