MongoDB, Inc. ranks below the peer group median, with profitability as the least supportive dimension. Recent price action is broadly in line with the structural positioning.
Peer-relative scores, weakest to strongest
MongoDB, Inc. develops and sells database software and cloud-based data platforms, with a focus on its Atlas cloud service. The company serves enterprise and developer customers globally.
Screens for MongoDB remain defined by capital return and earnings weakness: despite robust revenue growth, the company’s ROIC stands at -10.77% and net income is still negative at -€0.1bn. This persistent lack of profitability explains the market discount, even as topline expansion continues. The tension is not just about growth without profit, but about whether the business model can convert scale into sustainable returns.
Internally, the pressure is compounded by a bottom-decile stability score (2/100), exceptionally high 1-year volatility at 70.3%, and a severe maximum drawdown of -76.5%. These metrics indicate that confidence in MongoDB’s risk profile remains fragile. Adjusted EPS beats and strong revenue growth—Q4 FY26 revenue reached $695m, up 26.8% YoY, with EPS $1.65 above consensus—appear solid, but do not translate into a durable improvement in structural profitability or risk perception. The market rewards growth, but remains unconvinced that the underlying business can deliver consistent, high-quality returns.
Recent external context complicates this reading rather than changing it. Atlas platform revenue grew 30% YoY and now accounts for 75% of total revenue, highlighting the traction of MongoDB’s cloud strategy. However, this also increases concentration risk. AI-native customer growth and new AI product launches (Voyage 3.5, Model Context Protocol Server) differentiate MongoDB from legacy peers, but the financial transmission—operational improvements and product innovation—has not yet resulted in a step-change in profitability or risk profile. The sector backdrop of rising AI and cloud adoption supports the growth story, but does not yet offset the structural concerns.
Compared to peers like PANW, WDAY, and TOST, MongoDB’s persistent lack of profitability and extreme volatility are more severe than many peers, partly driven by factors specific to MongoDB’s business model and product mix. Its AI and cloud positioning offer some offsets, but do not fully compensate for the sharper edge of its capital return and stability risks.
A more constructive read would require ROIC to turn sustainably positive and net income to move out of deeply negative territory. Supporting improvement would include a material reduction in volatility and a more diversified revenue base beyond Atlas. Until then, MongoDB appears as a growth name with quality not yet fully rewarded.
Break down MDB's position across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
This analysis is rule-based and descriptive. Peer-relative scores are derived from functional peer group comparisons using publicly available financial data. Scores reflect structural positioning only and do not constitute investment advice, a buy or sell recommendation, or a forecast of future performance. AssetNext peer scores are recalculated periodically as new data becomes available.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.