Loading…
← CockpitCompetitor Analysis › 2718.HK Mininglamp Technology Class AOpen in the cockpit ↗

Mininglamp Technology Class A2718.HKCompetitor analysis, valuation and peers

Hong Kong · HKD·Information Technology›Packaged Software
Momentum laggard 3
Mkt cap
$533M
US dollars, full cap
Free float
42%
of shares outstanding
$/day
$3.64M
20-day average traded
Fwd P/E
n/m
no positive forecast
ROIC−WACC
-10.4 pp
WACC 5.3%
Hurdle
n/a
no reverse DCF
Next earnings
146 days
1 Apr 2027
Close · HKDHK$27.32
1D-7.6%
1W+2.7%
1M-26.4%
3M-38.2%
6M-88.8%
YTD-86.1%
1Yn/a
ATR %8.9%
52w lowhigh92.3% off high

What Mininglamp Technology does

Employees: 1,732

Mininglamp Technology at a glance

Size Mininglamp Technology (2718.HK) is a Hong Kong Information Technology company (Packaged Software) with a market value of $533M, the 742nd largest of 891 Hong Kong companies the cockpit tracks. Shares closed at HK$27.32 on 6 Nov 2026.

Performance Over six months the shares fell 88.8%, against -21.6% for the median peer and -13.4% for the Hong Kong market (cap-weighted) — lowest of 21 in its peer set.

Growth Revenue grew 9.2% over the last twelve months (peer median +5.0%); the operating margin is -6.2% (peer median 2.8%).

Valuation It trades at 1.9× enterprise value to sales against a peer median of 3.6× (6th cheapest of 20).

Capital Return on invested capital runs 10.4 points below its cost of capital (5.3% WACC).

Next results Next results expected around 1 Apr 2027 (exchange calendar; dates can move).

Relative performance

5010015011 May 202611 Aug 20266 Nov 2026Peer median 772718.HK 12
Six months, rebased to 100: Mininglamp Technology against the median of its 20 peers (local-currency closes).

Mininglamp Technology financials

Reported figures in HKD; fiscal year ends 2025-12-31. TTM = trailing twelve months.
TTMFY2025FY2024FY2023FY2022
RevenueHK$1.72BHK$1.55BHK$1.50BHK$1.62BHK$1.48B
Revenue growth—+3%-7%+9%—
Gross profitHK$915MHK$856MHK$738MHK$756MHK$643M
EBITDA-HK$52.4MHK$21.9M-HK$93.4M-HK$154M-HK$854M
Net income-HK$6.88B-HK$6.96BHK$5.13MHK$348MHK$1.93B
Free cash flow-HK$215MHK$5.46M-HK$39.1M-HK$183M-HK$681M
Capital expenditureHK$19.3MHK$11.4MHK$11.2MHK$17.9MHK$19.7M
Total debtn/aHK$285MHK$8.61BHK$8.44BHK$9.18B

Quarterly statements and history in the cockpit →

Mininglamp Technology competitor charts

The default views of Competitor Analysis ▸ Charts, drawn from the same data. Open them in the cockpit to change the axes, pin companies and read every value.

Performance: 6-month against 1-month return

-75%-50%-25%0%+25%-40%-20%0%07773673603918301221ACAST3477007595688588IVU3003529890301157RZLV300399STYL300571ATOTOM2BRUN3005502718.HK6-month return →1-month return →
Up and to the right = strong over both horizons. Mininglamp Technology is the large dot.

Fundamentals: revenue growth against valuation

0%+1,000%+2,000%0×5×10×07773673603918301221ACAST3477007595688588300352301157RZLV300399300571ATO3005502718.HKRevenue growth (TTM) →EV / Sales →
Further right = faster growth; higher = more expensive. The dashed lines are the peer medians. Mininglamp Technology is the large dot.

Mininglamp Technology competitors and peer comparison

How Mininglamp Technology compares with its peers

Peer set: Industry: the same industry and sector in any market, nearest in size. This is the same default set the interactive Competitor Analysis opens with.

Mininglamp Technology against its 20 peers (data as of 6 Nov 2026)
Measure2718.HKPeer medianRank in peer set
1-month return-26.4%-5.3%5th lowest of 21
6-month return-88.8%-21.6%lowest of 21
Distance from 52-week high-92.3%-47.4%lowest of 21
Revenue growth (TTM)+9.2%+5.0%9th highest of 20
Operating margin-6.2%2.8%7th lowest of 21
EV / Sales1.9×3.6×6th cheapest of 20
ROIC minus cost of capital-10.4 pp-5.8 pp6th lowest of 20

Peer table

Peer set: Industry: the same industry and sector in any market, nearest in size
CompanyMarketMarket cap6M returnRevenue growthOp. marginEV / SalesReq gDelivered g
Mininglamp Technology 2718.HKHong Kong$533M-89%+9%-6%1.9×n/an/a
NetDragon Websoft 0777.HKHong Kong$534M-13%-16%13%0.6×-14.5%-6.8%
Broadleaf 3673.TJapan$534M0%+12%13%3.9×6.4%-0.3%
Shanghai Golden Bridge Info Tech 603918.SSChina$530M-27%-15%-9%4.7×n/an/a
Wuhan KOTEI Informatics 301221.SZChina$526M-22%+11%2%3.5×n/an/a
Acast ACAST.STSweden$526M-20%+23%3%1.6×21.4%+32.5%
Sphere 347700.KSSouth Korea$525M-66%+303%3%5.5×n/an/a
Argo Graphics 7595.TJapan$525M-10%+5%15%0.8×-10.9%+10.5%
Linkage Software 688588.SSChina$541M-21%-10%12%3.2×17.6%+10.8%
IVU Traffic Technologies IVU.DEGermany$518M+40%+10%13%2.7×6.8%+10.2%
Beijing VRV Software 300352.SZChina$518M-67%+28%-110%10.6×58.4%-13.7%
Tanwan 9890.HKHong Kong$517M-52%-4%-6%n/an/an/a
Hangzhou Huasu Technology 301157.SZChina$516M-19%+16%5%9.4×n/an/a
Rezolve AI RZLVUnited States$550M-45%+2,224%-94%3.6×n/an/a
Jiangxi Tianli Technology 300399.SZChina$514M-21%+6%2%6.3×n/an/a
Seshaasai Technologies STYL.NSIndia$554M+20%-2%23%3.2×12.2%+7.9%
Hangzhou Anysoft Information Technology 300571.SZChina$512M-45%-12%-14%6.0×n/an/a
Atos ATO.PAFrance$555M-35%-14%6%0.3×n/an/a
TomTom TOM2.ASNetherlands$511M-23%-7%12%0.5×-10.1%+1.0%
Boost Run BRUNUnited States$511M-68%n/a-47%26.6×5.3%n/a
Heren Health 300550.SZChina$510M+18%-4%-11%7.8×43.2%-0.9%

Questions

Which companies are Mininglamp Technology's closest peers?
The cockpit's peer set: NetDragon Websoft (0777.HK), Broadleaf (3673.T), Shanghai Golden Bridge Info Tech (603918.SS), Wuhan KOTEI Informatics (301221.SZ), Acast (ACAST.ST), Sphere (347700.KS), Argo Graphics (7595.T), Linkage Software (688588.SS).
Is Mininglamp Technology expensive compared with its peers?
On ev / sales it trades at 1.9× against a peer median of 3.6×, 6th cheapest of 20 in its peer set.
How has Mininglamp Technology stock performed?
Over six months to 6 Nov 2026 the shares returned -88.8% against -21.6% for the median peer.

How these numbers are made. Returns are close-to-close in local currency. Revenue growth and margins are trailing twelve months. Req g is the revenue growth that today's enterprise value requires for seven years at the company's own cost of capital; Delivered g is what it actually grew; the gap is the hurdle (honest precision about ±8 points, so read the ranking more than the decimal). No fair values, price targets or analyst ratings are shown, by design. Method and validation.