BackAgileThought- Warrants(20/08/2026) Overview

AgileThought- Warrants(20/08/2026) Profit Margin

Latest profit margin for AgileThought- Warrants(20/08/2026): -41.2% — see history and peer comparisons.

Get informed when a big investor buys or sells

+ Follow

Quarterly Profit Margin

-52.95%
↓ 589.59% YoY

As of Jun 2023

Annual Profit Margin (TTM)

-41.20%

Trailing 12 months ending Jun 2023

Average Profit Margin (Comparison Companies)

Loading

Profit Margin History

Loading

Profit Margin Comparison

Loading

Annual Profit Margin Growth Rate (%)

Loading

AgileThought- Warrants(20/08/2026) (AGILW) FAQ

AgileThought- Warrants(20/08/2026) posts a profit margin of -41.2% as of June 2023. That is below the Technology sector average of 37.29%. Comparing that reading with peers and prior periods is usually more useful than looking at the number in isolation.

For Technology stocks, a profit margin near 37.29% is typical. AgileThought- Warrants(20/08/2026)'s -41.2% is lower that level. That is roughly 210.5% below the sector mean. Whether that is a warning or an opportunity depends on growth outlook and other fundamentals shown elsewhere on Stockcircle.

AgileThought- Warrants(20/08/2026)'s profit margin moves when the underlying profit, equity, or asset base changes. Cost cuts, pricing power, buybacks, write-downs, and cyclical swings can all shift the percentage. The latest reading is -41.2% as of June 2023; use YoY and peer views to separate noise from signal.

Context for AGILW's profit margin usually means three checks: (1) trend versus prior periods, (2) level versus peers (average 37.29%), and (3) consistency with growth and profitability. This page covers the first two; AgileThought- Warrants(20/08/2026)'s other metric pages and overview cover the third.

Judging AgileThought- Warrants(20/08/2026) against Technology peers is usually better than using a market-wide rule of thumb. Business models inside Technology are more comparable, which makes gaps in profit margin easier to interpret. Start with -41.2% here, then scan peer and history charts to see if the gap is persistent.