Codan Limited (ASX:CDA) is not a like-for-like stand-in for every company classified as an ASX technology share. It combines mission-critical communications with metal detection, so a useful comparison starts with what each business sells, how it earns revenue and what drives growth—not with a sector label alone.
For the year ended 30 June 2026 (FY26), Codan reported revenue of $875.0 million, EBIT of $244.1 million and NPAT of $175.2 million. Those are company-reported group results, not evidence by themselves that the shares are cheap, expensive or outperforming peers.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
What does Codan do?
Codan operates across communications and metal detection. Its businesses include Minelab gold detectors and communications products for mission-critical use. That combination gives investors a different starting point from a technology company focused mainly on software, IT services or another single category. The company describes its operations and products on its corporate and product site.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
For FY25, the year ended 30 June 2025, Codan reported communications revenue of $413.5 million and metal-detection revenue of $254.8 million in its annual report. These are FY25 segment figures; they should not be treated as FY26 segment results or added to FY26 group totals as though they came from the same reporting period.
#1 Best Overall
What do Codan’s latest reported results show?
Codan’s investor overview reports the following FY26 headline figures for the year ended 30 June 2026:
| FY26 measure | Reported result | Change against FY25 |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $875.0 million | Up 30% |
| EBIT | $244.1 million | Up 67% |
| NPAT | $175.2 million | Up 69% |
| Annual dividend | 48.5 cents per share, fully franked | Up 70% |
These values and growth rates are reported by Codan for FY26 in its investor overview. The dividend is a distribution figure, not a measure of operating performance, and past growth does not establish future results.
Codan says FY26 revenue growth reflected ongoing demand for unmanned systems, new gold-detector products and a full-year contribution from Kägwerks. These are the company’s stated drivers; the figures alone do not quantify each driver’s contribution or separate organic growth from acquired growth.
What should investors compare?
Build a comparison company by company and period by period. Codan’s mix makes a generic “technology” label too broad to support a meaningful ranking. Use the same reporting periods and definitions wherever possible, and explain when companies disclose different measures.
Business mix and customers
Identify the actual products, services, segments and customer types behind each company’s revenue. A hardware or communications supplier may have different sales cycles, customer relationships and cost structure from a software subscription business. For Codan, keep communications and metal detection visible rather than treating the group as one undifferentiated technology operation.
Growth quality
Separate growth from existing operations from revenue added through acquisitions when company disclosures permit. Codan’s FY26 explanation names product demand and a full-year Kägwerks contribution, but does not, in the cited headline information, assign a precise amount to each. Avoid calling the entire increase organic or acquired without a reported breakdown.
Profitability and margins
Compare like with like: group EBIT with group EBIT, or a consistently defined margin over matching periods. Do not compare a segment margin at one company with group profitability at another. For Codan, the FY26 headline EBIT and NPAT are group measures; the FY25 communications and metal-detection revenue figures are segment revenue, not segment profit.
Revenue visibility
Check what each company actually reports: recurring revenue, contracted revenue, backlog, orderbook or no comparable forward indicator. Those measures are not interchangeable. An orderbook may depend on cancellation terms, delivery timing and customer acceptance, while recurring revenue definitions vary. If Codan or a peer discloses an orderbook, use its stated definition and reporting date rather than treating it as guaranteed future revenue.
Best Value
- Used Book in Good Condition
End markets, customers and geography
Review annual reports and announcements for dependence on particular industries, customers, regions or product cycles. A business exposed to project timing or equipment replacement may behave differently from one with a broad recurring customer base. Compare these exposures from company filings rather than assuming all ASX technology shares face the same demand conditions.
Capital needs
Consider the investment required to support growth: research and development, inventory, manufacturing capacity, acquisitions and working capital can affect cash generation even when reported revenue and earnings are rising. Use disclosed cash-flow and balance-sheet information for the same period; do not infer cash generation from EBIT or NPAT alone.
Valuation at a common date
To decide whether Codan is valued more or less highly than another company, first choose a common share-price date and calculate comparable measures such as price-to-earnings or enterprise value to EBIT using consistent definitions. State how debt, cash, leases, share count and any unusual items are treated. Profit growth alone cannot establish whether a share is cheap or expensive.
A defensible quantitative peer ranking needs named companies and current, date-matched financial and market data. Without that matched set, it is more accurate to compare business models and disclosures than to claim Codan is outperforming or undervalued relative to a particular ASX technology peer.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to build a fair comparison
- Define the peer question. Decide whether you are comparing business models, growth, profitability, revenue visibility or valuation. A company can be a useful operating comparison without being a sensible valuation peer.
- Choose companies by economics, not label. Explain why each company belongs in the comparison—for example, shared end markets, customer type or revenue model.
- Align periods and definitions. Record the financial year or half-year, currency and accounting measure for each figure. Do not place FY25 segment revenue beside FY26 group revenue as if they were directly comparable.
- Separate operating evidence from share-market evidence. Revenue, EBIT and NPAT describe reported financial performance; share price and valuation require market data from a stated date.
- Mark gaps clearly. If a company does not disclose a comparable orderbook, segment margin or growth split, say it is not stated rather than substituting an estimate.
Why the sector label is not enough
ASX technology classifications can bring together companies with substantially different products, customers, revenue patterns and capital requirements. Codan’s combination of communications and metal detection is a concrete reason to inspect the underlying businesses before choosing peers. The relevant question is not simply whether another share is called “technology,” but whether its economics and disclosures make the specific comparison meaningful.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
