Resonance Health (ASX:RHT)
Shareholder Investment Review, August 2026
Disclosure. The author holds shares in ASX:RHT, which is a financial interest and a potential source of bias. This report was not commissioned or paid for by Resonance Health, but it is not independent research in the regulatory sense. It is general information, not financial advice, and every value below is an estimate for illustration, not a price target. The author is a long-term holder and will disclose any material change in position.
As at the FY26 results, 28 August 2026, at A$0.060. Later announcements are on the RHT Updates page.
The year Resonance turned the corner
FY26 delivered the first clean full-year profit, with positive operating cash in every quarter and no equity raised. Every line of the P&L and cash flow statement improved. EBITDA is the company’s normalised figure; statutory NPAT is A$1.5M. EBITDA guidance ($2.6M, upgraded in May) was met; revenue landed at $15.8M against the refined ~$16.0M after some trial revenue shifted into FY27.
The company at a glance
Five-factor snapshot, fair value dial, ownership breakdown, balance-sheet strength, and the path into profit.
Rewards
Risks
Four years of compounding, in pictures
Revenue has grown 3.5× since FY23 while margins expanded and EBITDA converted to free cash at better than 100%.
How does RHT stack up against its peers?
A cross-exchange peer set of medical imaging, diagnostics SaaS, and med-tech CRO companies : benchmarked on EV/Revenue, profitability, and strategic similarity.
| Company | Exchange | Revenue | Mkt Cap | EV/Rev | EV/EBITDA | P/E | Profitable | Similarity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RHT (current) | ASX | A$15.8M | ~A$28.6M | 1.7x | 10.1x | ~19x | Yes | — |
| Echosens (FibroScan) | Private | ~A$122M | ~A$389M | ~3.2x | n/a | n/a | Unknown | 5/5 |
| Volpara Health (acquired) | ASX | A$42.7M | A$292M | 6.8x† | n/a | n/a | No | 4/5 |
| Nanosonics (NAN) | ASX | A$198.6M | ~A$935M | 4.7x | 41.6x | ~42x | Yes | 3/5 |
| Alcidion (ALC) | ASX | A$40.8M | ~A$122M | 2.5x | n/a | ~28x | Yes | 3/5 |
| ImpediMed (IPD) | ASX | A$12.7M | ~A$71M | 3.6x | n/a | n/a | No | 3/5 |
| Lumos Diagnostics (LDX) | ASX | A$19.1M | ~A$94M | 4.9x | n/a | n/a | No | 3/5 |
| iRhythm (IRTC) | NASDAQ | A$591.8M | ~A$5.9B | 6.9x | n/a | n/a | Near | 3/5 |
| Veracyte (VCYT) | NASDAQ | A$445.8M | ~A$5.4B | 6.8x | 26.8x | ~38x | Yes | 3/5 |
| Hologic (HOLX) | NASDAQ | A$4,030M | ~A$26B | 4.2x | ~12x | ~15x | Yes | 2/5 |
| Cogstate (CGS) | ASX | US$60.9M | ~A$465M | ~4.4x | ~15x | ~20x | Yes | 5/5 |
| Pro Medicus (PME) | ASX | A$152M | ~A$20B+ | ~130x | ~170x | ~190x | Yes | 4/5 |
Key Insight: The Discount
RHT trades at 1.7x EV/Revenue, roughly a 62% discount to the peer group median of 4.5x. Of the comparables trading above that multiple about half are profitable, so profitability alone does not explain the gap. FY26’s A$1.5M profit was delivered while growing revenue 42% and without raising equity, and unlike FY24’s A$0.2M it did not rely on an R&D rebate. But the headline multiple overstates the discount, for the reason set out below.
The most instructive precedent is Volpara Health, acquired by Lunit in 2024 at A$1.15 a share, a 47% premium to the last close and about 6.8x revenue. That multiple is a takeover price including a control premium, and it is equity value over revenue rather than EV, so it is a ceiling reference rather than a trading multiple. Volpara was loss-making at the time; RHT is profitable. Both are ASX-listed, FDA-cleared medical imaging SaaS businesses with per-scan recurring revenue, selling to hospitals and clinical trial sponsors. At the Volpara multiple, RHT’s implied value is about A$0.23 a share.
The EBITDA lens. For a business where more than half of revenue is services, EV/EBITDA is the fairer yardstick. At A$0.060 RHT is on about 10× trailing normalised EBITDA and ~8.5× the FY27 guidance midpoint. Management’s own nominated comparable, Cogstate, trades near 15× with a 30% margin and contracted backlog RHT lacks; a typical profitable health-tech range is 10–16×. On that basis the discount is closer to a third than to 62%, and RHT sits at the bottom of the range rather than far below it. That is a smaller gap, but a more defensible one, and it is the framing this page leans on.
Sum of the parts. One multiple applied to the whole group treats clinical-trial services as if they were software. More than half of FY26 revenue is trial services (Resonance Clinical and TrialsWest), and only the A$7.0M SaMD segment is the software business the peer multiples describe. Valuing the segments separately is the more defensible method, and it is the figure this report relies on; the whole-group multiples above are a cross-check.
| Segment | FY26 revenue | Multiple | Implied value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Software (SaMD · Resonance Imaging) | A$7.0M | 4.5× (peer median) | A$31.5M |
| Clinical-trial services (Resonance Clinical and TrialsWest, net of inter-segment revenue) | A$8.8M | 1.0–1.5× | A$8.8–13.2M |
| Net cash | A$2.3M | ||
| Equity value | A$42.6–47.0M | ||
| Per share (477.1M shares) | A$0.089–0.099 |
Segment revenue is reported before eliminations (A$18.7M gross against A$15.8M group). The table assumes all inter-segment revenue sits in the services divisions, which flatters the software figure. The 1.0–1.5× services multiple is the author’s assumption for small clinical-trial service providers, not a measured peer median. On about 498M fully diluted shares the range is roughly A$0.086–0.094. Author estimates.
The sum of the parts lands at about A$0.09–0.10 a share, inside the A$0.07–0.13 whole-group range and a little above the A$0.083 base case. The figure also omits unallocated corporate costs and applies a whole-company peer multiple to the software segment; more conservative multiples give a lower figure (see the full PDF).
The rest of the discount is structural: no analyst coverage, thin institutional ownership, a sub-A$30M market cap below the minimum threshold for most ASX small-cap funds, and, unlike Cogstate with its US$118.5M of contracted future revenue, little backlog visibility. These are liquidity and discovery constraints rather than a judgement on the business, but they can persist for years and there is no closing date on them.
What is it worth?
Seven scenarios, from a conservative trailing multiple to two success cases for the fibrosis program. Every row but the last two values the device at zero. These are comparable-multiple estimates, not a DCF and not price targets.
Fibrosis device worth nothing. FY27 guidance broadly met at a flat margin, the large trial partly replaced, and the small-cap discount largely persists. The lower bound is the report price.
A positive EPoC and early investigational use in sponsors’ trials. A ~A$5M mature device revenue stream at ~50% incremental margin, discounted four years at 12% and weighted at 25–50% probability, adds $0.010–0.020 to the base and sum-of-the-parts figures.
Regulatory clearance, meaningful pharma adoption and around A$5M of mature device revenue, valued on the base-case 12× EBITDA multiple. Success (device ~A$5M revenue): A$0.146, +143%. Years away and undiscounted. Not a target.
Beyond the three cases. The device alone reaches around A$25M of annual revenue at a ~50% margin, five times the success case and more than the whole company earns today, on the same 12× multiple. Full success (device ~A$25M revenue): A$0.402, +570%. Years away, undiscounted, not a target.
The people running it
In a company this size, management quality matters as much as product quality. The turnaround did not happen by accident.
Harrison has run an ASX-listed diagnostic imaging business before. RHT describes him as a founder of Capitol Health (ASX:CAJ), where he sat on the board from its 2007 listing while the previous managing director ran an acquisition-led expansion. In 2016, with the company carrying about 4.3× EBITDA in debt, he stepped up from the board to interim CEO and was confirmed as Managing Director that November. Over the following two and a half years he led cost reduction, staff re-engagement and deleveraging, before handing over in June 2019 and leaving the board in 2020. Capitol later merged with Integral Diagnostics in December 2024, after his tenure, at about A$413M enterprise value.
He also served on the board of Enlitic Inc., a medical AI company focused on radiology workflow automation, giving him direct exposure to AI in clinical imaging. Note the overlap: Enlitic’s current CEO, Michael Sistenich, joined RHT’s board in April 2026 (see the board table below).
He joined RHT in July 2023, putting A$580,000 of his own money into shares at approximately 7.25 cents per share within weeks of starting. That personal commitment, now under water relative to the entry price but material in size, is worth noting.
Launched Resonance Clinical as a CRO division in August 2023. Within three years it became the largest segment at A$7.5M, up 81% in FY26. The A$13.8M Sun Pharmaceutical contract won in November 2024 was the single largest in company history.
Paid A$3.56M (debt-funded) for a Perth clinical trial site network. TrialsWest was profitable within its first year under RHT, contributing A$4.1M of revenue in FY26 and completing the vertical integration of the clinical imaging value chain.
Revenue grew 42% in FY26 while employee costs fell from 51% to 41% of revenue. The Bridge automation platform and AI-assisted analysis tooling are the mechanism. Harrison targets a 5-10x expansion of analysis capacity by end-FY27 without proportionate headcount.
No new equity raised in FY26. Cancelled 20M shares held as loan collateral in FY24, reducing the share count. Net cash improved from A$0.1M (FY25) to A$2.3M (FY26). On 12 August 2026, ahead of the results, ASX granted relief from quarterly cash-flow reporting (Appendix 4C): a listing-rule mechanic available to companies that meet its financial tests, not an award.
| Name | Role | Relevant background |
|---|---|---|
| Aaron Brinkworth | Non-Executive Chairman | 22 years at Gilead Sciences (Nasdaq: GILD), finishing as Executive Director of Global Patient Solutions responsible for commercial access across 31 APAC countries. Also NED of Proteomics International (ASX:PIQ). The Gilead background is directly relevant to RHT's pharma relationships. |
| Andrew Harrison | Managing Director & CEO | Described by RHT as a founder of Capitol Health (ASX:CAJ); long-standing director, then MD/CEO 2016–2019, leading its deleveraging. Former director of Enlitic Inc. (medical AI). BCom (Hons), MAICD. A$580k personal investment at appointment. |
| Dr. David Fuller | Non-Executive Director | MBBS and BPharm (University of Sydney). 30+ years in drug development, clinical research, and regulatory strategy. Currently CMO at Dimerix (ASX:DMX). Prior roles at Genzyme and Orphan Medical. Highest direct clinical relevance of any board member. Appointed April 2026. |
| Michael Sistenich | Non-Executive Director | MSc Biochemistry (Oxford), CFA Charterholder. Currently CEO of Enlitic Inc. (medical AI). Former life sciences corporate finance at Bell Potter (led healthcare IPOs). Investment roles at Lygon, Meditor, and DWS. Appointed April 2026. |
| Mitchell Wells | Non-Executive Director & Company Secretary | LLB/BCom. Lawyer by background. Legal counsel on London 2012 Olympics. ASX and Nasdaq corporate governance experience. On board since 2018. |
| Simon Panton | Non-Executive Director | Longest-serving board member (since 2009). Substantial shareholder since 2008. Business, investment, and property background. Provides long-term shareholder perspective and institutional knowledge of the company's history. |
One governance note. Harrison previously sat on Enlitic’s board and Sistenich is Enlitic’s chief executive. Overlapping networks are normal in a market this small, but a reader assessing board independence should know it, and any future commercial dealing between RHT and Enlitic would be a related-party matter to watch. None has been announced.
The rocket on the launchpad
The existing profitable business is the floor. The liver fibrosis device is the potential catalyst that changes the order of magnitude, if the EPoC data holds up and if the longer regulatory road is then travelled.
What the device actually does
Liver fibrosis staging (determining how scarred a liver is) is the critical gating step in MASH drug trials and clinical diagnosis. Today it largely means biopsy: a needle into the abdomen, pathologist review, sampling error, patient risk, and a result that takes days. RHT's device uses standard MRI sequences already on hospital scanners to produce an AI-derived fibrosis score non-invasively in minutes. No new hardware. No additional patient risk. No needle.
What EPoC is, and is not. EPoC stands for Extended Proof of Concept. It is a validation study against biopsy-confirmed ground truth, fully enrolled with analysis under way. A good result would let the tool be used in clinical trials for investigational purposes and be published; it is not an FDA clearance event. A 510(k) submission would come later, and qualification as an accepted trial endpoint (the bigger prize) is a longer, separate process again. The question the readout has to answer is whether the software separates F2 from F3 scarring, the line that decides who gets treated.
Why the timing is now
The MASH drug market has changed materially in the last 24 months. Rezdiffra (Madrigal) was the first approved MASH drug in 2024. Wegovy (semaglutide) followed. Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Boehringer Ingelheim all have major MASH programs in late-stage trials. Every one of those trials needs to stage and monitor liver fibrosis in thousands of patients. In 2025 the FDA signalled it wants non-invasive alternatives to biopsy, accepting both FibroScan and MRE into its biomarker qualification process; the regulator is pushing the industry toward exactly what RHT is building. The flip side is that those two rivals are already in the queue and RHT is not.
The competition
The non-invasive fibrosis field is contested, and honesty about that matters:
- FibroScan (Echosens): the incumbent point-of-care elastography device. Cheap, fast and ubiquitous, but operator-dependent and less reliable in obese patients, precisely the MASH population.
- MRE (Magnetic Resonance Elastography): the accuracy benchmark among imaging methods, but it requires dedicated hardware bolted onto the scanner, limiting availability and adding cost per site.
- cT1 (Perspectum): the closest analogue, an MRI software biomarker with strong pharma traction and a head start in MASH trials. Already 510(k)-cleared. Perspectum has raised far more capital and is the competitor to watch.
On the regulatory path the rivals are ahead: FibroScan and MRE both entered the FDA’s biomarker qualification process in 2025, cT1 is cleared, and AI-assisted pathology (PathAI) has just made the biopsy endpoint itself more reliable. RHT is not yet in that queue.
Resonance's angle is a software-only product on standard MRI sequences, leveraging a 20-year regulatory track record and an existing installed base of pharma and clinical customers. It doesn't need to beat FibroScan at screening. It needs to win a share of trial-monitoring and confirmatory workflows where accuracy and auditability command a premium.
RHT's unfair advantages
Existing FDA relationship. FerriScan and HepaFatScan are already FDA cleared and RHT has navigated 510(k) submissions before, so a future fibrosis submission would follow a known path rather than a cold introduction. That helps with device clearance; it does not shorten biomarker qualification.
Pharma relationships already in place. The CRO division runs imaging core lab services for drug developers. Those customers already trust RHT's data in regulatory submissions. Selling them a fibrosis staging tool is an upsell into an existing relationship, not a cold sale. What is missing so far is any named pharma sponsor for this product specifically.
Software margins on existing infrastructure. No hardware to ship, no installation, no training. The product runs on MRI machines already inside trial sites. The revenue model is per-scan or per-trial, the same structure as FerriScan.
Board depth ahead of the readout. Dr. David Fuller (30+ years drug development, CMO at Dimerix) and Michael Sistenich (Oxford biochemist, CEO of Enlitic) joined the board in April 2026. If the data is good, the regulatory and pharma-partnership experience to act on it is already in place. It says nothing about what the data will show.
How it compares to ASX imaging AI peers
Three ASX peers offer a useful product comparison (not a valuation one),, since all three are pre-profit with negligible revenue.
AI cardiac echo interpretation. FDA-cleared SaaS, zero hardware. A$101K revenue FY25. Re-rated on a Pro Medicus distribution deal. Same software-on-existing-scanners model as RHT's device, but EIQ has no profitable core business underneath it.
AI coronary CT imaging. FDA-cleared August 2025. A$28K revenue FY25. Valued almost entirely on pipeline optionality after an $80M raise. RHT's fibrosis device, if cleared, lands on top of a business already generating $15M+ through the same pharma channels AYA is still trying to enter.
4D lung ventilation maps from standard CT/X-ray. A$5.9M SaaS revenue FY25, growing 95%. Multiple FDA clearances, 388 sites, Pro Medicus as strategic investor. Trades at ~350x EV/Revenue. This is what the market has paid for a cleared, scaling medical imaging SaaS with a pharma distribution tailwind. RHT's fibrosis device targets similar buyers through already-established relationships.
The asymmetry in plain terms: at $0.060 the price roughly reflects the existing profitable, growing business, with little value attributed to the fibrosis device. It is not literally free: RHT is spending on the R&D and the eventual regulatory work. If the trial data is negative, the profitable core remains and an option lapses. If it is positive, RHT would have a validated product in a segment where the ASX has shown it will pay very high multiples for cleared imaging-AI software. The three names above are the evidence for that appetite, but they are product analogues, not valuation comparables for RHT, and a positive readout is the start of the regulatory road, not the end of it.
Market caps are approximate and dated: EchoIQ ~A$836M (10 August 2026), Artrya ~A$523M and 4DMedical ~A$2.05B; all three have moved across wide bands during 2026 and all three are loss-making. Comparison is product and model reference only, not a valuation benchmark.
What moves it from here
The five things that would most change the picture, in rough order of impact.
- EPoC trial readout. The binary event for the fibrosis thesis, and specifically whether it separates F2 from F3. Management guided to results within about a month of the FY26 result. Positive data validates the pipeline and starts the regulatory road; a miss removes the option value but leaves the profitable core intact.
- FY27 guidance delivery. Management has guided $17–22M revenue and $2.6–3.6M normalised EBITDA, a broadly flat ~16% margin at the midpoint, and the low end is no EBITDA growth at all. Note the run-rate: H1 FY26 revenue was $8.0M and H2 about $7.75M, so the second half annualises below the $17M bottom of the range; guidance assumes new work lands, including the trial revenue shifted from FY26. The H1 result around February 2027 will show where in a 29%-wide range the year is landing.
- CRO contract replacement. The A$13.8M trial invoices through roughly H1 FY27 and then rolls off; the top end of guidance assumes one new CRO win. Distribution deals and alliances only count once they turn into executed work orders.
- Margin trajectory. Watch whether operating leverage continues as revenue scales, or whether TrialsWest's lower-margin site work dilutes the mix.
- Capital allocation. Net cash of $2.3M and positive FCF create choices: fibrosis investment, bolt-on site acquisitions, or (eventually) shareholder returns. How the board spends the first surplus dollar tells you a lot.
Disclaimer
This report is general information only and is not financial advice. It does not consider your objectives, financial situation or needs. The author, Daniel Gouvignon, holds shares in Resonance Health (ASX:RHT) and is therefore not independent in the regulatory sense; this analysis reflects a shareholder’s perspective and may be biased accordingly. The author is a long-term holder and will disclose any material change in position. It was not commissioned, reviewed or paid for by the company. The values on this page are comparable-multiple estimates and illustrative scenarios, not price targets or recommendations.
Figures are drawn from company filings and announcements believed to be reliable, but accuracy is not guaranteed. Forward-looking figures (FY27E) are estimates, not predictions. Per-share figures use 477.1M basic shares on issue at 30 June 2026. Micro-cap securities are illiquid and volatile. You can lose your entire investment. Do your own research and consider seeking advice from a licensed adviser before making any investment decision. All figures are as at 28 August 2026, the FY26 results date, and are not updated for later events; see the RHT Updates page for those. The full PDF, with sources and references, is the primary document; this page is a summary of it.
RHT Updates & Announcements
ASX announcements, upcoming catalysts, and news coverage tracked weekly. Includes price context for each announcement.