vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of American Healthcare REIT, Inc. (AHR) and CubeSmart (CUBE), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
American Healthcare REIT, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($564.0M vs $282.7M, roughly 2.0× CubeSmart). CubeSmart runs the higher net margin — 1.9% vs 27.5%, a 25.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, American Healthcare REIT, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (13.5% vs 5.6%). Over the past eight quarters, American Healthcare REIT, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (11.7% CAGR vs 4.0%).
Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (MPT) is an international real estate investment trust (REIT) based in Birmingham, Alabama that purchases and invests in healthcare facilities and for-profit healthcare holding companies, primarily in the United States and Europe. Their property acquisitions often come in the form of sale-leaseback agreements, in which the original property owner sells the property to MPT and becomes their tenant. MPT's tenants are generally subject to long-term triple net lease...
CubeSmart is a real estate investment trust that invests in self storage facilities in the United States. As of December 31, 2024, it owned 631 self storage properties in 25 states and the District of Columbia containing 45.8 million rentable square feet. It is the 3rd largest self storage company in the United States.
AHR vs CUBE — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $564.0M | $282.7M |
| Net Profit | $10.8M | $77.7M |
| Gross Margin | 14.8% | 68.7% |
| Operating Margin | 19.8% | — |
| Net Margin | 1.9% | 27.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 13.5% | 5.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | 133.9% | -23.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.07 | $0.35 |
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 | $564.0M | $282.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $532.1M | $285.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $501.3M | $282.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $497.2M | $273.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $496.8M | $267.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $476.8M | $270.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $458.0M | $266.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $452.1M | $261.4M |
| Q4 25 | $10.8M | $77.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $55.9M | $82.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.9M | $82.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-6.8M | $88.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-31.8M | $101.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-4.1M | $101.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0M | $94.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-3.9M | $94.9M |
| Q4 25 | 14.8% | 68.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.6% | 68.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 15.0% | 68.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.0% | 69.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 13.3% | 71.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 12.5% | 69.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.1% | 68.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.7% | 70.5% |
| Q4 25 | 19.8% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 19.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 20.6% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 20.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.6% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 18.2% | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.9% | 27.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 10.5% | 28.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.0% | 29.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.4% | 32.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | -6.4% | 38.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | -0.9% | 37.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.4% | 35.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | -0.9% | 36.3% |
| Q4 25 | $0.07 | $0.35 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.33 | $0.36 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.06 | $0.36 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.04 | $0.39 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.23 | $0.45 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.03 | $0.44 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.01 | $0.41 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.04 | $0.42 |
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 | $114.8M | $5.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.3B | $2.7B |
| Total Assets | $5.4B | $6.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $114.8M | $5.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $147.4M | $108.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $133.5M | $8.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $86.1M | $10.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $76.7M | $71.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $67.8M | $43.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $52.1M | $5.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $77.0M | $5.6M |
| Q4 25 | $3.3B | $2.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.7B | $2.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.4B | $2.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.3B | $2.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.3B | $2.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.2B | $2.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.9B | $2.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.0B | $2.8B |
| Q4 25 | $5.4B | $6.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.8B | $6.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.5B | $6.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.5B | $6.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.5B | $6.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.7B | $6.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.6B | $6.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.7B | $6.2B |
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 | $55.2M | $136.5M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 5.12× | 1.76× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $55.2M | $136.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $107.2M | $168.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $71.5M | $157.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $60.6M | $146.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $59.5M | $164.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $63.1M | $145.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $59.4M | $170.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-6.0M | $150.2M |
| Q4 25 | 5.12× | 1.76× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.92× | 2.04× | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.21× | 1.91× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.65× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.62× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.44× | ||
| Q2 24 | 30.02× | 1.81× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.58× |
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
AHR
| Integrated Senior Health Campuses | $467.0M | 83% |
| SHOP | $97.0M | 17% |
CUBE
Segment breakdown not available.
