olivLaw · European equity research
Techstep ASA TECH.OL
Norway · Euronext Oslo Børs · ISIN NO0012916131 · Vertical: Listed companies from Norway
Techstep ASA is a mobile technology provider in Scandinavia and Europe that combines devices, proprietary software and managed mobility services. Revenue fell in 2025 to NOK 1 001 million as the company shifts from transactional sales to recurring models, which matters for enterprises and public bodies seeking secure, sustainable mobile device management. The transition is proving slower than expected, and debt and net losses remain visible pressures.
At the close of 06 Nov 2026, Techstep ASA (TECH.OL) stock was 1.60 NOK (−0.31% on the day), with market capitalisation 54.9 k NOK, beta 0.43, 52-week range 1.47–13.50 NOK.
Data as of · AI analysis dated · Source: ESEF annual reports and closing prices, computed by olivLaw.
Price history
Loading chart…
Technical reading
- RSI (14)
- 43.1
- weak (30–45)
- Bollinger (20, 2)
- 1.33 – 2.25
- in the lower half of the band · %B 0.29 · band width 51.1%
- SMA 50 / 200
- 2.51 / 7.08
- downtrend (price < SMA50 < SMA200)
- MACD (12, 26, 9)
- -0.17 / -0.20
- MACD above signal
Indicators describe past prices; on their own they do not predict direction. On our history the RSI ≤ 40 filter added no return (see the signals methodology).
Performance
| Company | EURO STOXX 50 | vs EURO STOXX 50 | Vertical median | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 month | −2.8% | −0.6% | −2.2 pp | — |
| 3 months | −13.8% | −4.2% | −9.6 pp | — |
| 6 months | −85.5% | +4.3% | −89.8 pp | — |
| Year to date | −87.3% | +7.5% | −94.9 pp | — |
| 1 year | −87.0% | +9.9% | −97.0 pp | −4.7% |
| 3 years | −80.1% | +49.8% | −129.9 pp | +12.7% |
| 5 years | −96.3% | +42.8% | −139.1 pp | — |
Price returns, dividends excluded.
Quarterly results
ESEF annual reports carry no quarters: the results are annual (below).
E/P over time
E/P = trailing-12-month diluted EPS / price at quarter end. E/P is the inverse of P/E and stays defined when earnings are negative.
Fiscal years
| Fiscal year | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 1.1 bn | 1.1 bn | 997.9 m |
| Revenue YoY | unavailable | −1.6% | −6.8% |
| Net income | -44.5 m | -45.7 m | -103.5 m |
| Net income YoY | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable |
| Diluted EPS | -1,430.00 | -1,420.00 | -3,010.00 |
| Diluted EPS YoY | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable |
| net % | -4.1% | -4.3% | -10.4% |
| Free cash flow | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable |
Balance sheet & financial health
Fiscal year 2025 · 31 Dec 2025
- Cash
- 9.3 m NOK
- Financial debt
- 163.7 m NOK
- Net debt
- 154.4 m NOK
- Equity
- 485.1 m NOK
- Total assets
- 1.1 bn NOK
- Debt / equity
- 0.34x
- Current ratio
- 0.34x
- ROE
- -19.6%
- ROA
- -9.1%
- FCF margin
- unavailable
Financial statements (source on every figure)
Revenue and net income (NOK)
Margins
Income statement · NOK
| Line | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | Source (latest year) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 1.1 bn | 1.1 bn | 997.9 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Operating income | -36.5 m | -34.7 m | -89.8 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Depreciation & amortisation | 64.9 m | 69.0 m | 99.5 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| EBITDA | 28.4 m ≈ | 34.3 m ≈ | 9.7 m ≈ | esef· 21 Oct 2026derived |
| Interest expense | 24.2 m | 17.2 m | 16.7 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Pre-tax income | -59.6 m | -50.4 m | -103.5 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Income tax | -15.0 m | -4.7 m | -9.0 k | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Net income | -44.5 m | -45.7 m | -103.5 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Diluted EPS | -1,430.00 | -1,420.00 | -3,010.00 | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
≈ computed by olivLaw from the reported lines of the same year: Operating income + Depreciation & amortisation.
Balance sheet · NOK
| Line | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | Source (latest year) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash | 77.5 m | 30.8 m | 9.3 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Receivables | 159.1 m | 134.7 m | 128.9 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Current assets | 277.6 m | 206.9 m | 181.2 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Goodwill | 624.2 m | 632.1 m | 495.0 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Intangibles (excl. goodwill) | 161.0 m | 124.7 m | 91.0 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Total assets | 1.3 bn | 1.2 bn | 1.1 bn | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Accounts payable | 198.4 m | 175.8 m | 163.0 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Short-term debt | 48.8 m | 25.0 m | 163.7 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Current liabilities | 513.2 m | 428.6 m | 529.7 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Total liabilities | 697.1 m | 606.8 m | 624.1 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Equity | 573.7 m | 570.6 m | 485.1 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Shares outstanding at year end | 31.2 k | 32.2 k | 34.4 k | esef· 21 Oct 2026derived |
Cash flow · NOK
Computed indicators
Growth
Profitability
Returns
Balance sheet
Liquidity
Cash
Efficiency
Market and valuation
1 indicators that do not apply to the sector.
Valuation
olivLaw classification
- score weight coverage: 47.9% of at least 60%
- valuation methods computed: 0 of at least 1
A scoring methodology on indicators and valuation, not investment advice.
Closing price
06 Nov 2026Source: olivLaw, closing series
Market cap: 54.9 k NOK
Key indicators
Coverage and freshness
Score by group
48% · Insufficient data
Estimated value range
unavailable — no valuation assumptions for the reporting currency
Valuation assumptions are editorial choices, not measured; beta is not measured.
Valuation methods
Assumptions (illustrative, editorial)
- Risk-free rate
- 6.5%
- Equity risk premium
- 6.0%
- Beta (default)
- 1.00
- Cost of equity
- 12.5%
- Terminal growth
- 3.0%
Factor scorecard
Insufficient data
Minimum-evidence gate: score weight coverage: 47.9% of at least 60%; valuation methods computed: 0 of at least 1
| Factor | Value | Score | Weight used |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROIC · Quality | -12.5% | 9 (vs peers) | 22% |
| Net margin · Quality | -10.4% | 21 (vs peers) | 13% |
| FCF conversion · Quality | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Revenue CAGR 3Y · Growth | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| EPS CAGR 3Y · Growth | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Net debt / EBITDA · Balance sheet | 15.9x | 0 (vs peers) | 22% |
| Interest coverage · Balance sheet | -5.4x | 0 (on a fixed band) | 13% |
| Current ratio · Balance sheet | 0.3x | 0 (on a fixed band) | 9% |
| P/E (TTM) · Valuation | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| EV/EBITDA · Valuation | 15.9x | 14 (vs peers) | 22% |
| FCF yield · Valuation | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Shareholder yield (distributions) · Returns | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Payout ratio (FCF) · Returns | unavailable | unavailable | — |
Factors without a value were dropped; the remaining weights were renormalised.
Score groups
- Balance sheet0/100 · 3/3 factors with a value
- Growth· partialunavailable · 0/2 factors with a value
- Quality14/100 · 2/3 factors with a value
- Returns· partialunavailable · 0/2 factors with a value
- Valuation· partial14/100 · 1/3 factors with a value
A «partial» group is computed from under half of its weight or from one factor: it is not a full assessment of the group.
Memo
TECHSTEP ASA (TECH.OL). Latest full fiscal year: 2025; data up to 2025-12-31.
Figures computed from the financial statements: revenue 997.9 m NOK in 2025; YoY growth -6.8%; net margin -10.4%; ROE -19.6%; net debt/EBITDA 15.9x.
Valuation cannot be computed from the available data.
Insufficient data for a verdict (score weight coverage: 47.9% of at least 60%; valuation methods computed: 0 of at least 1).
Text generated deterministically from the figures shown; no language model. Not investment advice.
What supports the thesis
No signal among the computed factors. That is not an absence of risk: factors without data were not assessed, and business risks (margins, inventory, demand) are in the source-based analysis.
What contradicts it
- ROIC: -12.5%
- Net margin: -10.4%
- Net debt / EBITDA: 15.9x
- Interest coverage: -5.4x
- Current ratio: 0.3x
- EV/EBITDA: 15.9x
Not assessed (insufficient data or a ratio without meaning): FCF conversion, Revenue CAGR 3Y, EPS CAGR 3Y, P/E (TTM), FCF yield, Shareholder yield (distributions), Payout ratio (FCF).
Versus the vertical median
Listed companies from Norway · same country · compared with 39 companies
Multiples and returns vs the median
Price rebased to 100 (monthly, 5 years)
Companies in the vertical
| Market cap | P/E | ROE | Net margin | Revenue YoY | 1A / 3A | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AKER.OLAker Asa | 79.8 bn | 20.3 | 7.9% | 21.4% | +42.5% | +36% / +59% |
| AFG.OLAf Gruppen Asa | 21.5 bn | 19.8 | 39.7% | 3.4% | +4.4% | +8% / +69% |
| ELK.OLElkem Asa | 19.2 bn | 39.3 | 1.9% | 2.7% | −15.7% | +10% / +73% |
| ATEA.OLAtea Asa | 18.5 bn | 21.4 | 19.7% | 2.3% | +8.1% | +11% / +36% |
| AKSO.OLAker Solutions Asa | 17.4 bn | 6.8 | 22.5% | 4.1% | +19.2% | +18% / −12% |
| AUSS.OLAustevoll Seafood Asa | 16.6 bn | 37.1 | 1.6% | 1.1% | +11.1% | −7% / +10% |
| BRG.OLBorregaard Asa | 15.6 bn | 25.1 | 11.4% | 8.0% | +1.3% | −18% / −9% |
| BONHR.OLBonheur ASA | 11.2 bn | 7.8 | 17.1% | 11.4% | −10.8% | +17% / +44% |
| AFK.OLArendals Fossekompani Asa | 10.3 bn | — | -2.3% | -3.1% | −14.9% | +39% / +31% |
| B2I.OLB2 Impact Asa | 8.8 bn | 14.3 | 11.0% | 16.4% | +2.6% | +40% / +238% |
| AKVA.OLAkva Group Asa | 5.7 bn | 31.2 | 13.7% | 4.2% | +24.4% | +74% / +152% |
| ELMRA.OLElmera Group Asa | 5.1 bn | 32.0 | 10.5% | 1.3% | −0.9% | +32% / +98% |
| BOUV.OLBouvet Asa | 5.0 bn | 14.2 | 80.7% | 9.2% | −0.2% | −19% / −16% |
| CLOUD.OLCloudberry Clean Energy Asa | 4.0 bn | 61.9 | 1.3% | 13.1% | +34.0% | −5% / +29% |
| ABG.OLAbg Sundal Collier Holding Asa | 3.6 bn | 10.7 | 34.9% | 16.8% | +12.4% | −13% / +20% |
| ANDF.OLAndfjord Salmon Group As | 2.2 bn | — | -5.7% | -12,770.4% | +328.9% | −18% / −11% |
| BMA.OLByggma Asa | 1.6 bn | — | -25.3% | -11.9% | −2.5% | +61% / +15% |
| APR.OLAppear Asa | 1.4 bn | 10.5 | 30.1% | 16.1% | +32.3% | −53% / unavailable |
| AZT.OLArcticzymes Technologies Asa | 1.1 bn | 108.9 | 2.9% | 8.6% | +7.9% | −8% / −48% |
| CAPSL.OLCapsol Technologies Asa | 884.6 m | — | -89.4% | -114.8% | −25.0% | −33% / −66% |
| BOR.OLBorgestad Asa | 553.2 m | 36.1 | 2.1% | 1.4% | −3.0% | −7% / +41% |
| ARR.OLArribatec Group Asa | 234.6 m | 4.8 | 22.1% | 9.3% | +15.7% | −33% / −55% |
| DELIA.OLDellia Group Asa | 73.5 m | 1.5 | 22.6% | 7.7% | +140.0% | −62% / unavailable |
| ABTEC.OLAqua Bio Technology Asa | 11.1 m | 0.1 | — | 7,297.7% | −87.2% | −82% / −97% |
| TECH.OLTechstep Asa | 54.9 k | — | -19.6% | -10.4% | −6.8% | −87% / −81% |
1- and 3-year price returns: for TECH.OL from daily closes (the same as the performance table), for the other companies from month-end closes.
olivLaw engine forecast
The world engine ran after the company's latest material disclosure. Probabilities are of TOUCHING a level within the horizon (not closing there) and sit next to the random walk (p_rw), the no-information benchmark.
The engine has no published run for this company yet.
Valuation scenarios (editable assumptions)
Illustrative scenarios
Illustrative: not forecasts and without probabilities. Each case is one coherent set of assumptions, computed on today's figures.
Estimated price (NOK)
| Estimated price | Bear | Base | Bull |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 years | insufficient data Total return unavailable · Per year unavailable | insufficient data Total return unavailable · Per year unavailable | insufficient data Total return unavailable · Per year unavailable |
| 3 years | insufficient data Total return unavailable · Per year unavailable | insufficient data Total return unavailable · Per year unavailable | insufficient data Total return unavailable · Per year unavailable |
| 5 years | insufficient data Total return unavailable · Per year unavailable | insufficient data Total return unavailable · Per year unavailable | insufficient data Total return unavailable · Per year unavailable |
AI analysis
AI-generatedAI-generated analysis (Claude) from cited public sources; it may contain errors. Not investment advice. As of 27 Oct 2026 · Model: claude-haiku-5-5.
In brief
Techstep ASA is a mobile technology provider in Scandinavia and Europe that combines devices, proprietary software and managed mobility services. Revenue fell in 2025 to NOK 1 001 million as the company shifts from transactional sales to recurring models, which matters for enterprises and public bodies seeking secure, sustainable mobile device management. The transition is proving slower than expected, and debt and net losses remain visible pressures 1.
SWOT
Strengths
- The company has a diversified customer base with a significant share of public sector and larger enterprise customers, which could provide stability. Own software carries very high margins and is scalable, and ISO certifications help in sensitive contracts.
- Recognition by Gartner as a managed mobility services provider supports its commercial credibility. The company has kept high margins on recurring segments even as total revenue declined.
- The cost base has been reduced and the reorganisation is already implemented, while the carve-out of Business Critical Mobility simplifies the portfolio. These steps could make the company more agile over the medium term.
Weaknesses
- Revenue declined in 2025 and the company reported a significant net loss, which shows dependence on low-margin contracts and expiring agreements. The shift to a recurring model is slower than initially anticipated.
- Net debt rose in 2025 and liquidity depends on refinancing operations after long-term debt was repaid. The company does not use hedging instruments, leaving it exposed to foreign currency swings.
- Own software revenue is still affected by the decline in the Telecom Expense category tied to an expired agreement. Dependence on a single major partner shows the vulnerability of certain distribution channels.
Opportunities
- Demand for mobile security and data sovereignty in the public sector and critical infrastructure could grow, and the company could capture it by leveraging its regional presence. Expanding software in Europe through partners could bring high-margin revenue.
- E-waste rules and the circular economy could create demand for recycling and lifecycle services. If customers adopt device-as-a-service more widely, recurring revenues could grow.
- A unified group ERP and a smaller cost base could support profitability as benefits become visible in the coming years. New contracts with the public sector and large companies could sustain service growth.
Threats
- Competitive pressure from MDM software vendors and IT integrators could limit price increases and margins. Losing large public sector contracts could quickly affect revenue.
- Supply chain disruptions and trade restrictions could delay device deliveries and raise hardware costs. This could affect not only sales but also customers who postpone purchasing decisions.
- High interest rates could raise financing costs and limit the company's ability to invest. Rising cyber risk could also erode customer trust in a provider that handles sensitive data.
Risks
- Business model transitionhigh
The shift from transactional sales to recurring revenue delays cash inflows and can weigh on liquidity. If new contracts take longer to materialise, results could remain under pressure.
- Liquidity and refinancinghigh
Net debt rose in 2025, and repayment of long-term loans depends on new bank facilities. A funding shortfall could limit investment in software platforms.
- Currency exposuremedium
The company does not use hedging instruments, and part of its revenue comes in SEK, PLN and EUR. A stronger Norwegian krone could reduce reported results.
- Dependence on public sector contractsmedium
The expiry of a very low-margin frame agreement reduced device revenue. If other large contracts are not renewed, revenue could decline again.
- Geopolitical and supply chain riskmedium
Trade restrictions, tariffs and disruptions in transport corridors can raise costs and delay deliveries. The impact could be amplified by the concentration of technology supply in a few vendors.
Investment thesis
What would need to be true (bull case)
- If the shift to software and recurring services accelerates, higher margins could offset lower device revenue. The reorganisation and the Business Critical Mobility carve-out could make the company more profitable in the coming years.
- Demand for mobile security and device management in the public sector and critical infrastructure could grow, and regional presence could become an advantage. A contract with a major healthcare partner is already fully operational.
- Own software carries very high margins and is scalable. If the Lifecycle and Essentials MDM customer base keeps growing, high-margin revenue could become a larger share of the total.
What would break the thesis
- Revenue declined in 2025 and the net loss widened, which could indicate that the transformation is taking longer than anticipated. If new contracts do not offset expiries, pressure on results could persist.
- Net debt has risen and liquidity depends on refinancing. If funding becomes more expensive or harder to obtain, investment in software could be postponed.
- Competition from MDM software vendors and integrators could limit price increases, while supply chain disruption could raise costs and delay deliveries. These pressures could reduce the margins the company is aiming for.
What to watch
- Development of recurring revenue and new contracts with the public sector and large customersQ1 2027
- Net debt level and new bank facilities after repayment of long-term loans2027
- Impact of the reorganisation and cost base reduction on adjusted EBITA2027
- Development of own software revenue, especially the Lifecycle and Essentials MDM platformsnext 10-K
Products, market & competition
AI-generatedAI-generated analysis (Claude) from cited public sources; it may contain errors. Not investment advice. As of 27 Oct 2026 · Model: claude-haiku-5-5.
The business
Techstep ASA was established in 2016 and grew through acquisitions in Scandinavia before expanding into Europe through Poland. It describes its business as mobile technology, combining devices with proprietary or licensed software and expertise to help organisations work smarter and more sustainably 1. The stated goal is to become the leading mobile and circular technology company in Europe, serving more than 2 100 enterprise customers in the private and public sectors 1.
The business model is moving from a transactional hardware provider to a mobile technology enabler with recurring revenue. In 2025 management focused on three things: moving customers to recurring contracts and higher-margin products, building the indirect channel for software and managed services, and reducing the cost base 1. In April 2026 the company says the foundational reorganisation steps are complete, including the carve-out of the Business Critical Mobility business 1.
The company reports three revenue streams: mobile devices and other products, advisory and services, and own software. Its strategic emphasis is on higher-margin areas, including device-as-a-service contracts and proprietary software that carries a net gross margin above 85% 1.
Segments
Mobile Devices and Other
This segment covers sales of mobile devices and accessories, either as one-time transactions or as-a-service with recurring revenues committed for 24 months or more. Revenue fell to NOK 669 million in 2025, roughly 10% lower, largely because a public sector frame agreement for iPads expired and the company chose not to re-tender for very low-margin business 1.
Advisory and Services
This segment includes specialised advisory, support and maintenance, sometimes sold as-a-service with a minimum 12-month commitment, plus resale of third-party software licences. Revenue grew 3% in 2025 to NOK 211.2 million, but the net gross margin fell by 5 percentage points because of a shift in the product mix 1.
Own Software
This segment provides high-margin revenue from commercial software sold as recurring contracts. Revenue held at NOK 118.2 million in 2025 while the net gross margin rose to 89%. A decline in the Telecom Expense category, linked to a legacy agreement with Telenor that expired in 2025, was partly offset by growth in Lifecycle and Essentials MDM 1.
Market context
The company places itself in the Managed Mobility Services market, which Gartner defines as the integration of devices, software and services into one offering. Demand is driven by digitalisation, stricter regulation and security needs, particularly in the public sector and critical infrastructure, where there is a preference for trusted regional providers 1. Gartner expects 70% of organisations to adopt managed device lifecycle services by 2028, up from fewer than 35% in 2025 1.
Scandinavia remains the primary market, where Techstep sells directly and through partnerships to enterprises and the public sector, while its European go-to-market effort is led from Poland 1. Growing demand for mobile device management and mobile security, driven by data sovereignty and cyber threat concerns, could favour providers with local presence if this trend continues 1.
Trends
- Mobile work and data securitytailwind
A more mobile workforce, especially field and frontline staff, makes secure device management a core operational requirement. This could support demand for the company's MDM offerings if organisations choose providers that keep control over their data.
- E-waste regulation and sustainabilitymixed
Stricter e-waste rules and CSRD reporting requirements may create opportunities for circular services and device lifecycle management. At the same time, compliance costs and hardware pressures could rise if supply chains are disrupted 1.
- Financing costs and currency volatilityheadwind
A higher-for-longer interest rate environment and fluctuations in SEK, PLN and EUR could affect customer investment and consolidated results, since the company does not use hedging instruments 1. A considerable strengthening of the Norwegian krone could reduce reported results 1.
- Geopolitical supply chain disruptionheadwind
Trade restrictions, tariffs and disruptions in critical transport corridors can lengthen lead times and raise logistics costs for mobile equipment. The company relies on several vendors and distributors to reduce exposure, but the risk remains 1.
Competitive position
The analysed sources do not name direct competitors for Techstep. The company presents itself as a managed mobility services provider recognised by Gartner and emphasises combined offerings of devices, software and advisory, which could set it apart from hardware-only vendors 1.
Its competitive position rests on telecoms and mobility expertise, a Scandinavian presence and partnerships with operators and IT service providers. Reliance on a single major partnership, such as the one with Telenor, shows that third-party relationships are also an important competitive factor 1.
- European managed mobility services providers
The sources do not name competitors, but this category covers MMS providers that integrate devices and software for enterprises.
- Telecom operators offering expense management software
Operators selling telecom expense software compete indirectly, particularly given past partnerships with Techstep.
- Mobile device management and mobile security software vendors
Specialist MDM vendors compete for the same public sector and critical infrastructure customers.
- IT service providers and systems integrators
Integrators may offer advisory and support services similar to the Advisory and Services segment.
News & filings
In the press
No news in our archive over the last 180 days.
Annual reports (ESEF)
- Annual report 202521 Oct 2026
- Annual report 202408 May 2025
Sources
- [1] Annual report, fiscal year ended 2025-12-31 (ESEF) · SEC / Techstep ASA · 31 Dec 2025
Figures computed by olivLaw from ESEF annual reports and closing prices; the qualitative analysis is AI-generated from cited sources. Not investment advice.