31–40 of 143 posts
> We have incurred losses in all years since our incorporation. We incurred a net loss of $52.7 million in fiscal 2018, $52.0 million in fiscal 2017 and $18.6 million in the three months ended July 31, 2018. As a result, we had an accumulated deficit of $233.4 million as of July 31, 2018. Woah.
Or are they just unnecessarily bloated?
Interesting. My initial instinct is to compare them to MongoDB which IPO'd about a year ago. They seem to be doing quite well since, but then again, who hasn't in the tech sector? I will say I very much enjoy Elastic's suite of products, I can't say the same for MonogoDB.
There are key differences between MongoDB and Elastic. MongoDB (the company), has been very strategic about defending themselves from Amazon. Likely due to the AGPL licensing on MongoDB (the database), Amazon doesn't offer a hosted MongoDB - you have to buy MongoDB Atlas which runs on multiple cloud providers, including AWS, GCP and Azure. Coincidentally, Atlas subscriptions are the fastest growing part of MongoDB In…
Also the reason Redis Labs made the controversial decision to change their licensing (and they reference Elastic in it) [1].
[1] https://redislabs.com/blog/redis-license-bsd-will-remain-bsd...
> Cloud providers have been taking advantage of the open source community for years by selling (for hundreds of millions of dollars) cloud services based on open source code they didn’t develop (e.g. Docker, Spark, Hadoop, Redis, Elasticsearch and others). This discourages the community from investing in developing open source code, because any potential benefit goes to cloud providers rather than the code developer or their sponsor.
> We have incurred losses in all years since our incorporation. We incurred a net loss of $52.7 million in fiscal 2018, $52.0 million in fiscal 2017 and $18.6 million in the three months ended July 31, 2018. As a result, we had an accumulated deficit of $233.4 million as of July 31, 2018. Woah.
> We have incurred losses in all years since our incorporation. We incurred a net loss of $52.7 million in fiscal 2018, $52.0 million in fiscal 2017 and $18.6 million in the three months ended July 31, 2018. As a result, we had an accumulated deficit of $233.4 million as of July 31, 2018. Woah.
Thanks for posting these. These numbers and loss margins seem typical for a company in this line of service (cloud or self-hosted distributed databases or data services.) See similar recent IPOs for MongoDB, Cloudera and Hortonworks. Another useful section related to revenue in the paragraph just before the one you posted: > As of July 31, 2018, we had over 5,500 customers across over 80 countries and in a wide range…
> We have incurred losses in all years since our incorporation. We incurred a net loss of $52.7 million in fiscal 2018, $52.0 million in fiscal 2017 and $18.6 million in the three months ended July 31, 2018. As a result, we had an accumulated deficit of $233.4 million as of July 31, 2018. Woah.
Is this a data point for how well the open source business model works? Or are they just unnecessarily bloated?
Interesting. My initial instinct is to compare them to MongoDB which IPO'd about a year ago. They seem to be doing quite well since, but then again, who hasn't in the tech sector? I will say I very much enjoy Elastic's suite of products, I can't say the same for MonogoDB.
There are key differences between MongoDB and Elastic. MongoDB (the company), has been very strategic about defending themselves from Amazon. Likely due to the AGPL licensing on MongoDB (the database), Amazon doesn't offer a hosted MongoDB - you have to buy MongoDB Atlas which runs on multiple cloud providers, including AWS, GCP and Azure. Coincidentally, Atlas subscriptions are the fastest growing part of MongoDB In…
Twilio, Mulesoft, and MongoDB are probably the best comparables here -- open-source and dev-tools based SaaS IPOs. All of these were very successful at IPO and afterwards, and even compared to these, Elastic looks great.
* They're growing at almost 100% per year which is incredible. Twilio filed for IPO growing at 70% per year. Mulesoft was growing at 60%. Mongo was growing at 50%
* Losing $50M on $150M of revenue. (Net margins of -33%). This is pretty reasonable and in line with Twilio and Mulesoft. MongoDB was significantly worse at -60% net margins.
With that kind of growth I'd imagine something like a 220M ARR when they actually IPO, and valuation of 15-20x that.
This is an extremely solid financial statement. $150M in revenue, growing ~100% per year; I'd project a valuation between $3B and $4B. Twilio, Mulesoft, and MongoDB are probably the best comparables here -- open-source and dev-tools based SaaS IPOs. All of these were very successful at IPO and afterwards, and even compared to these, Elastic looks great. * They're growing at almost 100% per year which is incredible. T…
Wall Street smoke 'n' mirrors strikes again.
Slightly off topic: this quote from the SEC filing document: "Immediately prior to the completion of this offering, we intend to change our corporate form from a Dutch private company with limited liability (besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid) into a Dutch public limited company (naamloze vennootschap) and change our corporate name from Elastic B.V. to Elastic N.V." As far as I know, Elasticsearch h…
Slightly off topic: this quote from the SEC filing document: "Immediately prior to the completion of this offering, we intend to change our corporate form from a Dutch private company with limited liability (besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid) into a Dutch public limited company (naamloze vennootschap) and change our corporate name from Elastic B.V. to Elastic N.V." As far as I know, Elasticsearch h…
Be sad at your politicians. They allow for it. This tax avoidance scheme is known for years now and nobody takes action, so it must be okay for them. And as a public company, it is your obligation to not spend more money on tax than you are legally obliged to, unless you’re doing charity.
[citation needed]