vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Alpha Cognition Inc. (ACOG) and Amber International Holding Ltd (AMBR). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Alpha Cognition Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($2.8M vs $1.9M, roughly 1.5× Amber International Holding Ltd). Amber International Holding Ltd runs the higher net margin — 87.5% vs -245.5%, a 333.0% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Amber International Holding LtdAMBREarnings & Financial Report
Amber Road, Inc. (NYSE: AMBR) was a US-based software company specializing in Global Trade Management (GTM) solutions. It was acquired by E2open in 2019.
ACOG vs AMBR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q2 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $2.8M | $1.9M |
| Net Profit | $-6.9M | $1.6M |
| Gross Margin | — | 39.9% |
| Operating Margin | -283.7% | 1.5% |
| Net Margin | -245.5% | 87.5% |
| Revenue YoY | — | — |
| Net Profit YoY | — | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.10 | $0.02 |
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 | $2.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.7M | $1.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-6.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-10.5M | $1.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-2.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 96.7% | 39.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 99.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | -283.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -187.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -346.1% | 1.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -125.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | -245.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -46.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -632.7% | 87.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -68.5% | — |
| Q4 25 | $-0.10 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.30 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.65 | $0.02 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.13 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $66.0M | $25.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $62.5M | $91.3M |
| Total Assets | $79.7M | $248.2M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $66.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $35.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $39.4M | $25.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $45.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | $62.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $33.9M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $31.9M | $91.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $40.8M | — |
| Q4 25 | $79.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $46.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $45.1M | $248.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $48.6M | — |
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 | $-6.9M | $-4.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-7.1M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -252.6% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 5.3% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | -2.49× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-20.7M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $-6.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-5.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-6.1M | $-4.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-2.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-7.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-5.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-6.1M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-2.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | -252.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -188.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -370.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -72.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | 5.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.2% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -2.49× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
