Nanalyze uses financial metrics only. They don't care if you make bubble gum or nuclear fusion reactors. Show us the revenue, profit, growth, blah blah. 

This has its place in investing. If you want growth companies that have crossed the threshold from development to sales, their financial metrics will tell the story. No need to learn about the technology, it doesn't matter in this way of looking at investing. 

If Suresh is getting it right, as most here think, the rewards are multiples better than waiting until the valuation is a $billion. That's about 10X from recent prices. That is your reward for evaluating the technology. For small investors, that makes quite a difference; for me, I can retire it vs. having a nice gain. Of course it is risky.  

It is useless for pre-revenue companies like POET to use financial tools. POET's only significant revenues are NREs (non-recurring engineering) and the sale of Denslight. NREs might be a good metric for sophisticated analysis of pre-revenue companies, as they mean a larger company is writing checks to "design in," a necessary precursor to sales for custom products. 

The difference is similar to the chasm between day traders and long-term investors. They have totally different mindsets, goals, and ways of looking at companies. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia

This is a fun read, given POET's struggles. This guy would have dissed Nvidia during its first half decade and he would have been right for a while. Today he would look like the village idiot.