vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of ADTRAN Holdings, Inc. (ADTN) and Mobile Infrastructure Corp (BEEP), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
ADTRAN Holdings, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($291.6M vs $8.8M, roughly 33.3× Mobile Infrastructure Corp). ADTRAN Holdings, Inc. runs the higher net margin — -1.2% vs -85.6%, a 84.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, ADTRAN Holdings, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (20.1% vs -4.3%). Over the past eight quarters, ADTRAN Holdings, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (13.5% CAGR vs -0.4%).
Adtran, Inc. is an American fiber networking and telecommunications company headquartered in Huntsville, Alabama. It is a vendor of both residential and enterprise networking equipment, along with administrative software for network management and deployment. Its customers include communications service providers, governments, enterprises and utilities.
China Mobile is the trade name of both China Mobile Limited and its ultimate controlling shareholder, China Mobile Communications Group Co., Ltd., a Chinese state-owned telecommunications company. It provides mobile voice and multimedia services through its nationwide mobile telecommunications network across mainland China and Hong Kong. China Mobile is the largest wireless carrier in China, with 945.50 million subscribers as of June 2021. China Mobile was ranked #25 in Forbes' Global 2000 in...
ADTN vs BEEP — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $291.6M | $8.8M |
| Net Profit | $-3.6M | $-7.5M |
| Gross Margin | 39.0% | — |
| Operating Margin | 1.5% | — |
| Net Margin | -1.2% | -85.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 20.1% | -4.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | 92.2% | -650.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.02 | — |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $291.6M | $8.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $279.4M | $9.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $265.1M | $9.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $247.7M | $8.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $242.9M | $9.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $227.7M | $9.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $226.0M | $9.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $226.2M | $8.8M |
| Q4 25 | $-3.6M | $-7.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-10.3M | $-5.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-20.5M | $-4.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-11.3M | $-3.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-46.1M | $-999.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | $-33.3M | $-1.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-49.7M | $-1.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-330.8M | $-2.1M |
| Q4 25 | 39.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 38.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 37.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 38.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 36.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 36.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 36.0% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 31.1% | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -1.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -5.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.6% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -6.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -11.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -17.0% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -153.1% | — |
| Q4 25 | -1.2% | -85.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | -3.7% | -63.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | -7.7% | -47.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | -4.5% | -47.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | -19.0% | -10.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | -14.6% | -13.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -22.0% | -14.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | -146.2% | -23.8% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.02 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.12 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.24 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.14 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.58 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.38 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.63 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-4.20 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $95.7M | $8.3M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $198.3M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $145.8M | $141.3M |
| Total Assets | $1.2B | $382.5M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 1.40× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $95.7M | $8.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $93.7M | $6.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $106.3M | $10.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $101.3M | $11.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $76.0M | $10.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $88.5M | $8.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $111.2M | $8.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $106.8M | $9.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | $198.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $183.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $186.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $187.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $188.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $132.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $133.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $134.5M |
| Q4 25 | $145.8M | $141.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $141.6M | $151.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $169.6M | $160.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $138.9M | $164.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $127.0M | $170.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $205.6M | $134.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $213.6M | $107.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $260.8M | $107.9M |
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | $382.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $397.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $405.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $409.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $415.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.3B | $418.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.3B | $417.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.3B | $420.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.40× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.21× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.16× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.14× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.11× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.99× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.24× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.25× |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $42.2M | $-626.0K |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $30.6M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 10.5% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 4.0% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $98.0M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $42.2M | $-626.0K | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.2M | $1.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $32.2M | $1.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $43.2M | $-1.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.4M | $227.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | $43.3M | $0 | ||
| Q2 24 | $19.9M | $346.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $37.9M | $-1.4M |
| Q4 25 | $30.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $27.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $35.8M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-895.0K | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $37.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $24.4M | — |
| Q4 25 | 10.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.4% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 14.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -0.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 16.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.7% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.8% | — |
| Q4 25 | 4.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.1% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.0% | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
ADTN
| Subscriber Solutions | $96.2M | 33% |
| Optical Networking Solutions | $81.8M | 28% |
| Access Aggregation Solutions | $64.6M | 22% |
| Services And Support | $48.9M | 17% |
BEEP
| Transient Parkers | $4.5M | 52% |
| Contract Parkers | $2.4M | 28% |
| Base Rent Income | $1.2M | 14% |
| Other | $607.0K | 7% |
