Omada Health [OMDA]
Two outputs are produced, as valuation.md requires. Neither replaces the other.
| Output | Horizon | Instrument | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied-path test | 5 years | reverse DCF | PASS, margin +8.1 to +13.5pp |
| 12-month target | 12 months | own multiple history × near-term revenue | UNIDENTIFIED — declared, not substituted |
Every figure below was taken from a primary filing, not from the screen. Discrepancies are reported in §2.
| Input | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Spot | $20.41 | Alpaca daily close, 2026-07-28 |
| Shares outstanding (basic) | 59,448,507 | 10-Q cover page, as of 2026-05-05 |
| Shares (treasury-method diluted) | 69,281,000 | computed from Note 6 reserved-share table |
| Market cap (basic) | $1,213.3m | |
| Cash and equivalents | $211,765k | Balance sheet, 2026-03-31 |
| Total debt | $0 | Balance sheet: total liabilities $68,680k, all current, none debt |
| Net cash | +$211,765k | verified |
| EV (basic) | $1,001.6m | |
| TTM revenue | $283,295k | Q2'25 61,371 + Q3'25 68,030 + Q4'25 75,846 + Q1'26 78,048 |
| TTM operating income | −$8,357k | Q2'25 −4,344 + Q3'25 −2,513 + Q4'25 +3,281 + Q1'26 −4,781 |
| EV/Sales (basic) | 3.54x | |
| EV/Sales (diluted) | 4.24x | the number a buyer actually pays |
| Screen field | Screen value | Verified value | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
shares |
59,448,507 | 59,448,507 | ✅ correct — pre-IPO trap avoided |
net_cash |
211,765,000 | 211,765,000 | ✅ correct — breaks a 9-of-9 error streak |
revenue_ttm |
283,295,000 | 283,295,000 | ✅ correct to the dollar |
spot |
20.41 | 20.41 | ✅ |
vol_252d_pct |
56.4 | 57.0 | ✅ within tolerance |
op_margin_pct |
−4.6 | −4.6 (FY2025) / −2.9 (TTM) | ⚠️ FY basis, not TTM — flagged |
revenue_cagr_demonstrated |
45.6 | 45.6 (FY23→FY25) | ✅ arithmetic correct, but stale — see §4 |
required_cagr_pct |
17.2 | 11.8 on independently derived terminal margin | ⚠️ 5.4pp discrepancy — see §3 |
valuation_margin_pp |
+28.4 | +8.1 to +13.5 | ⚠️ materially overstated — see §4 |
| implied share count for EV | basic only | dilution +16.9% ignored | ⚠️ multiple understated 20% |
Four of ten inputs are exactly right, three are right-with-a-caveat, three are materially wrong. None of the errors reverse the verdict; all three inflate it.
assets/reverse_dcf.py, solving for the revenue CAGR today's price requires.
Parameters held fixed, named explicitly:
- Horizon: 5 years
- WACC: 10.0%
- Starting revenue: $283.295m (verified TTM)
- Starting EV: $1,001.6m (verified)
- Exit multiple: 22.8x EBIT, basis GROWTH_MATCHED, n = 155 comparators whose growth brackets the
subject's (±50% band around 45.6%) drawn from the 4,018-name scan universe
- Terminal operating margin: 14.3%, the growth-matched comparator median. Omada's own TTM operating
margin is negative (−2.9%), so the max(own, peer) rule collapses to the peer median. Basis stated:
growth-matched peer median, subject is pre-profit.
Required 5-year revenue CAGR: 11.80%
At the screen's terminal margin of 11.3% ("industry median (pre-profit)") the same solver returns 17.2%. Both are defensible; the difference is entirely one unobservable parameter. The honest statement is a range: today's price requires a 5-year revenue CAGR of 11.8%–17.2%.
demonstrated − requiredThe number the strategy ranks on. It depends entirely on which "demonstrated" you use, so all four are shown:
| Demonstrated basis | Value | Margin vs 11.8% | Margin vs 17.2% |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2024 → FY2025 | 53.2% | +41.4pp | +36.0pp |
| FY2023 → FY2025 (screen) | 45.6% | +33.8pp | +28.4pp |
| Q1'26 YoY | 42.0% | +30.2pp | +24.8pp |
| FY2026 company guidance, midpoint $326m | 25.3% | +13.5pp | +8.1pp |
The forward-relevant margin is +8.1pp to +13.5pp. Every backward-looking basis is contradicted by the company's own guidance for the very next year, issued 2026-05-07.
| Exit multiple | Required CAGR | vs guided 25.3% |
|---|---|---|
| 13.7x (0.6×) | 23.82% | +1.5pp |
| 18.2x (0.8×) | 16.90% | +8.4pp |
| 22.8x (base) | 11.80% | +13.5pp |
| 27.4x (1.2×) | 7.79% | +17.5pp |
| 34.2x (1.5×) | 3.09% | +22.2pp |
Flip point: the name fails against its own guidance only below ~12.5x exit EBIT — a 45% compression from the growth-matched anchor. That is a wide margin of error.
| Terminal margin | Required CAGR |
|---|---|
| 8.58% | 23.82% |
| 11.44% (≈ screen's 11.3%) | 16.90% |
| 14.30% (base) | 11.80% |
| 17.16% | 7.79% |
| 21.45% | 3.09% |
Omada's FY2026 adjusted-EBITDA guidance of $14–20m on $326m is a 4.3–6.1% adjusted-EBITDA margin, and adjusted EBITDA excludes share-based compensation. Getting from there to a 14.3% operating margin in five years is the real assumption in this valuation, and it is unproven. This is the highest-variance parameter in the model and it is why the required CAGR carries a 5.4pp range.
Terminal value = 100% of EV by construction of this instrument (it is a pure terminal model). Well above the 60% threshold, so the reverse DCF is mandatory as the primary long-horizon output and no forward DCF is presented as a competing answer.
Valuation Criteria (implied path): PASS. Today's price requires 11.8%–17.2% revenue CAGR. The company guides 25.3% for the next twelve months and has demonstrated 42–53% over trailing periods. The required path sits at or below what the business has already demonstrated — the definition of PASS, without needing the "with argument" escape.
The screen computes valuation_margin_pp = demonstrated_CAGR − required_CAGR, where the demonstrated CAGR
is a trailing 2-to-3-year realised rate. For any company whose growth is decelerating — which is nearly
every high-growth company, and certainly every one that just IPO'd off a small base — the trailing CAGR is
mechanically higher than the forward rate.
On OMDA the gap is 20.3 percentage points, and the company itself published the forward number 82 days before the screen ran.
This inflates the ranking metric for exactly the names the screen is designed to find. It does not flip verdicts often (OMDA still passes by +8.1pp), but it systematically mis-ranks them: a decelerating 45%-grower and a steady 25%-grower will be scored as though the first has three times the cushion, when forward they may be identical.
Proposed fix (for the calibration record, not applied here): where a company has issued current-year
revenue guidance, compute a second field valuation_margin_pp_guided using the guided growth rate, and rank
on the minimum of the two. Guidance is a filed, dated, primary-source number available at zero incremental
token cost from the same 8-K the screen already touches.
valuation.md requires the multiple to be anchored on the name's own trading history with the
percentile stated, and requires that where the history is too short or spans a regime change the anchor
be declared UNIDENTIFIED rather than substituted with a peer median.
OMDA's own history fails both conditions:
| Test | Finding |
|---|---|
| Length | 286 trading days (2025-06-06 → 2026-07-28). Approximately 13.7 months. |
| Regime | The entire series is the post-IPO price-discovery window. IPO priced at $19.00 on 2025-06-09. |
| Dispersion | EV/Sales range 1.69x – 6.57x. A 3.9x peak-to-trough spread in 13.7 months. |
| Central tendency | Median 3.56x, p25 2.72x, p75 4.69x. The interquartile range alone is ±28% of the median. |
A distribution that wide, over that short a window, with no pre-IPO regime to compare against, does not identify a mean to revert to. Declared UNIDENTIFIED.
Current percentile is still stated, as required: spot EV/Sales 3.54x = 49th percentile of the 286-day record.
A peer median is deliberately not substituted. That is the specific defect this rule exists to close.
Rather than a false point estimate, here is what each multiple implies, on the company's own guidance path.
Revenue build: FY2026 at guidance midpoint $326m (Q1'26 actual $78.048m + Q2–Q4 $247.95m distributed on FY2025 seasonality → Q2'26 $74.1m, Q3'26 $82.2m, Q4'26 $91.6m). FY2027 growth is not guided and is shown as a range.
| FY27 growth | Trailing revenue at 2027-06-30 | @ p25 2.72x | @ median 3.56x | @ current 3.54x | @ p75 4.69x |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +18% | $353.4m | $19.72 (−3.4%) | $24.75 (+21.3%) | $24.58 (+20.4%) | $31.45 (+54.1%) |
| +22% | $359.5m | $20.00 (−2.0%) | $25.12 (+23.1%) | $24.94 (+22.2%) | $31.93 (+56.4%) |
| +28% | $368.6m | $20.42 (+0.1%) | $25.66 (+25.7%) | $25.48 (+24.8%) | $32.65 (+60.0%) |
Shares held at 59,448,507 and net cash at +$211.765m throughout.
Reading the grid. The multiple, not the revenue, determines the answer. Across a ±10pp swing in FY2027 growth the target moves $0.70; across the p25→p75 multiple range it moves $11.93. Seventeen times more sensitive to the multiple. That asymmetry is precisely why declaring the anchor UNIDENTIFIED is the correct output rather than a cop-out: a point target here would be a statement about the multiple dressed up as a statement about the business.
If the multiple simply holds at today's 3.54x, the guidance path delivers roughly $24.94, +22.2%. That is the most defensible single sentence available, and it is a conditional, not a target.
Sanity band vs an external professional target: none available in this run. No external target is fabricated.
The 5-year implied path says the price requires 11.8–17.2% growth and the company will likely deliver more — a PASS on ownership. The 12-month instrument says the tradeable outcome depends almost entirely on a multiple that has no identified central tendency — an honest UNIDENTIFIED on tradeability.
These are not in conflict; they measure different things over different horizons, which is exactly why
valuation.md requires both. Reporting only the implied path would have made OMDA look like a clean long.
Reporting only the 12-month grid would have made it look unanalysable. Together they say: the business
clears the ownership test comfortably; the entry is a multiple bet with no historical anchor, so size it
accordingly.