BackAgileThought- Warrants(20/08/2026) Overview

AgileThought- Warrants(20/08/2026) Receivables

Track AgileThought- Warrants(20/08/2026)'s receivables ($40M) with charts, peers, and YoY trends.

Get informed when a big investor buys or sells

+ Follow
Receivables
$39.77M
16.05% YoYΔ $-7.60M vs prior year quarter

Peer average

Loading

AgileThought- Warrants(20/08/2026) Receivables History

Loading

AgileThought- Warrants(20/08/2026) vs. peers: Receivables Comparison

Loading

AgileThought- Warrants(20/08/2026) Receivables Growth (YoY per quarter)

Latest change versus the prior comparable period (same company).

Loading

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

AgileThought- Warrants(20/08/2026) posts a receivables of $40M as of June 2023. That compares with $47M in the prior-year period — down 16.0% year over year. Comparing that reading with peers and prior periods is usually more useful than looking at the number in isolation.

In the prior comparable period, AgileThought- Warrants(20/08/2026)'s receivables was $47M. The latest reading is $40M — a 16.0% year-over-year decrease (period ending June 2023). Use the history and growth charts on this page for a longer lookback.

Receivables is one piece of AgileThought- Warrants(20/08/2026)'s financial statement story. At $40M, it should be interpreted next to related metrics — for example revenue with costs, assets with liabilities, or income with margins. Stockcircle links those related pages so you can move from this number to the surrounding context quickly.

Context for AGILW's receivables usually means three checks: (1) trend versus prior periods, (2) level versus peers, 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 receivables easier to interpret. Start with $40M here, then scan peer and history charts to see if the gap is persistent.