Adjusted EPS is earnings per share recalculated after adding selected expenses back to net income, most commonly stock-based compensation. It shows what per-share earnings would look like if those expenses were excluded. No accounting standard defines which expenses qualify, so the specific adjustments vary by whoever publishes the figure.
The logic behind it is narrow and legitimate: some expenses reduce reported earnings without reducing cash, and a per-share figure that strips those out shows what the business generated in cash terms rather than accounting terms. Stock-based compensation is the canonical case. A company that pays an engineer $200,000 in salary writes a check for $200,000. A company that pays the same engineer $120,000 in salary and $80,000 in restricted stock writes a check for $120,000 and issues equity for the rest. Both recorded $200,000 of compensation expense. Only one of them spent $200,000.
This metric is controversial. Adding back SBC increases reported earnings, but stock compensation is a real economic cost to shareholders because it dilutes their ownership. Adjusted EPS should be used alongside, not instead of, standard EPS.
Adjusted EPS = (Net Income (TTM) + Stock-Based Compensation (TTM)) / Basic Shares Outstanding
GeminIQ adds trailing twelve-month stock-based compensation back to TTM net income, then divides by period-end basic shares. All inputs are from SEC filings. Using basic shares keeps the metric on the same basis as market cap and other per-share ratios. The stock-based compensation figure comes from the operating activities section of the cash flow statement, where SBC appears as a non-cash add-back reconciling net income to operating cash flow.
GeminIQ adds back stock-based compensation and nothing else. No restructuring charges. No intangible amortization. No impairments, litigation settlements, or acquisition costs. That constraint is the point: an adjustment set that varies by company cannot support a comparison between companies, because any difference in the resulting figures reflects a difference in adjustment policy as much as a difference in business performance. Fixing the adjustment at one item — the one with the clearest non-cash justification and the most consistent disclosure across filers — produces a figure that means the same thing everywhere.
The tradeoff is real. A company that took a truly non-recurring $2 Billion legal settlement will show a depressed adjusted EPS that its own investor deck would present very differently. This figure is not attempting to represent management's view of normalized earnings. It is attempting to be the same calculation for every company in the universe, which is a different property, and a more useful one when the goal is comparison rather than narrative.
A: Adjusted EPS is earnings per share calculated after adding certain expenses back to net income, most commonly stock-based compensation. It shows what per-share earnings would look like if those expenses were excluded. No accounting standard defines which expenses qualify, so the specific adjustments vary by whoever publishes the figure.
A: Because adjusted EPS is a non-GAAP measure, and non-GAAP measures are defined by whoever publishes them. Regulation G requires a company presenting a non-GAAP figure to reconcile it to the nearest GAAP equivalent and to avoid presenting it more prominently than the GAAP number. That is a disclosure rule, not a definition rule. It governs how the adjustment must be shown, says nothing about which adjustments are permitted, and applies to the company's own reporting rather than to third-party platforms recalculating the figure independently. So "adjusted EPS" describes a category of calculation rather than a specific one.
A: Four account for most of the distance between GAAP EPS and a company-reported adjusted EPS figure, and they are not equally defensible. Stock-based compensation is the most common and most contested: non-cash in every sense that matters to the cash flow statement, but a real cost to existing shareholders through dilution. Intangible amortization is second, defended as reflecting a purchase price allocation rather than an ongoing cost — an argument that holds for a rare acquirer and weakens considerably for a serial one. Restructuring charges are third, where the label does real work: a single restructuring in a decade is plausibly non-recurring, while charges appearing in eleven consecutive quarters are an operating expense wearing a different name. Litigation settlements, impairments, and acquisition costs make up the fourth group, and they share a pattern worth watching — they are almost always additions to earnings, rarely subtractions.
A: Because they are adding back different things. One source may add back stock compensation only, another may add stock compensation plus intangible amortization plus restructuring charges. Both figures can be internally consistent and still disagree by a wide margin. There is no universal definition of "adjusted EPS." GeminIQ's adjusted EPS specifically adds back SBC and nothing else, which is clearly defined and consistent across all companies.
A: Both, read together. Diluted EPS is the conservative floor — it divides GAAP net income by a share count that includes every outstanding option, restricted share, and convertible instrument as though all of them converted. Adjusted EPS sits highest, because it has added an expense back to the numerator that the other figures subtract. The spread carries the signal: a business paying its workforce primarily in cash produces figures clustered tightly together, while a software or semiconductor business where stock compensation runs 10% to 30% of revenue produces a wide spread. That spread quantifies how much of the reported earnings stream is routed to employees as equity rather than retained for shareholders.
A: Stock-based compensation is a non-cash expense — the company does not write a check for SBC, it issues equity. Adding it back shows what earnings would be if the company paid all employees in cash instead of equity. This can be useful for understanding cash-generation capacity, but it overstates economic earnings because the dilutive effect of SBC is real.
A: Yes, and it happens routinely. If stock-based compensation exceeds the net loss, adding it back flips the numerator positive while GAAP net income remains negative. A business losing $400 Million with $600 Million in stock compensation shows $200 Million in adjusted net income and a positive adjusted EPS while the GAAP figure stays negative. The calculation is valid. Reading the adjusted figure without the GAAP figure alongside it is not. This pattern shows up precisely where SBC is largest — early-stage software companies with heavy equity compensation and no GAAP profitability.
Further Reading: Stock Buybacks vs. Stock Compensation: Running in Place
Now put it to work. Screen every US public company by Adjusted EPS.
Start 7-Day Free Trial →