vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of AbCellera Biologics Inc. (ABCL) and Blend Labs, Inc. (BLND). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
AbCellera Biologics Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($44.9M vs $32.4M, roughly 1.4× Blend Labs, Inc.). Blend Labs, Inc. runs the higher net margin — -7.8% vs -19.9%, a 12.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, AbCellera Biologics Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (788.4% vs 7.6%). Blend Labs, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($-21.0K vs $-44.6M). Over the past eight quarters, AbCellera Biologics Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (112.3% CAGR vs 16.6%).
AbCellera Biologics Inc. is a Vancouver, British Columbia-based biotechnology company that discovers and develops antibody therapeutics. The company is best known for its leading role in the Pandemic Prevention Platform, a project of DARPA's Biological Technologies Office. AbCellera utilizes a proprietary technology platform, which they claim can develop "medical countermeasures within 60 days." Its platform for single-cell screening was initially developed at the University of British Columbia.
GU Energy Labs is a company based in Berkeley, California, that produces sports nutrition products, most notably energy gels. Often consumed during endurance events, the gels are designed to be quickly and easily digested during any type of activity. Other products include energy chews, drink mixes, hydration tablets, stroopwafels and a Roctane line that includes an energy drink mix, protein recovery drink mix, gel, and capsules. The company was founded in 1994 by Bill Vaughan, who began crea...
ABCL vs BLND — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $44.9M | $32.4M |
| Net Profit | $-8.9M | $-2.5M |
| Gross Margin | — | 75.7% |
| Operating Margin | -63.7% | -11.1% |
| Net Margin | -19.9% | -7.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 788.4% | 7.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | 73.9% | -207.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.03 | — |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history. Quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $44.9M | $32.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $9.0M | $32.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $17.1M | $31.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.2M | $26.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.0M | $30.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.5M | $33.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.3M | $28.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.0M | $23.8M |
| Q4 25 | $-8.9M | $-2.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-57.1M | $12.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-34.7M | $-6.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-45.6M | $-9.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-825.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | $-51.1M | $-2.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-36.9M | $-19.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-40.6M | $-20.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | 75.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 74.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 73.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 70.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 74.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 74.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 70.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 67.3% |
| Q4 25 | -63.7% | -11.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | -851.8% | -16.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -290.2% | -15.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1479.6% | -29.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -10.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | -1439.4% | -34.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | -1276.2% | -45.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | -551.5% | -89.0% |
| Q4 25 | -19.9% | -7.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | -637.8% | 37.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -203.3% | -21.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1077.2% | -35.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -2.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | -785.4% | -7.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -504.3% | -67.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | -408.0% | -86.7% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.03 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.19 | $0.02 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.12 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.15 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-0.03 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.17 | $-0.03 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.13 | $-0.09 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.14 | $-0.09 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $128.5M | $68.3M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $0 |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $966.9M | $-30.5M |
| Total Assets | $1.4B | $170.0M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $128.5M | $68.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $83.2M | $77.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $92.4M | $88.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $159.3M | $104.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $156.3M | $94.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $126.6M | $112.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $148.3M | $108.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $123.6M | $121.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | $0 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $138.9M |
| Q4 25 | $966.9M | $-30.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $964.0M | $-13.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | $-23.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | $-17.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | $-56.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $-49.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $-45.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.1B | $-35.8M |
| Q4 25 | $1.4B | $170.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4B | $188.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | $182.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $187.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4B | $178.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.4B | $186.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.4B | $185.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.5B | $201.8M |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Cash flow is harder to manipulate than net income.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $-34.7M | $1.5M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-44.6M | $-21.0K |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -99.4% | -0.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 21.9% | 4.8% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-174.1M | $-81.0K |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $-34.7M | $1.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-52.6M | $-3.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-32.4M | $-6.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-11.6M | $20.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-108.6M | $-4.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-28.9M | $2.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-30.0M | $-6.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-41.7M | $-3.9M |
| Q4 25 | $-44.6M | $-21.0K | ||
| Q3 25 | $-61.5M | $-5.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-45.8M | $-10.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-22.2M | $15.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-187.0M | $-7.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-47.4M | $-1.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-50.1M | $-8.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-65.8M | $-5.8M |
| Q4 25 | -99.4% | -0.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | -687.0% | -17.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | -267.9% | -31.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -524.0% | 58.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | -3702.8% | -23.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | -728.4% | -4.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | -683.8% | -29.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | -661.5% | -24.5% |
| Q4 25 | 21.9% | 4.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 99.7% | 6.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 78.2% | 11.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 251.1% | 16.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1552.7% | 8.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 284.6% | 10.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 274.6% | 6.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 242.5% | 8.2% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -0.30× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
ABCL
Segment breakdown not available.
BLND
| Mortgage Suite | $18.9M | 58% |
| Consumer Banking Suite | $11.4M | 35% |
| Professional Services | $2.1M | 6% |
