vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of C3.ai, Inc. (AI) and Caledonia Mining Corp Plc (CMCL). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
C3.ai, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($75.1M vs $46.9M, roughly 1.6× Caledonia Mining Corp Plc). Caledonia Mining Corp Plc runs the higher net margin — 7.0% vs -139.3%, a 146.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Caledonia Mining Corp Plc posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (13.8% vs -20.3%). Over the past eight quarters, Caledonia Mining Corp Plc's revenue compounded faster (17.1% CAGR vs -2.1%).
C3.ai, Inc. is a leading enterprise artificial intelligence software provider that develops and delivers scalable AI applications, platform tools, and industry-specific solutions for clients across sectors including manufacturing, energy, financial services, healthcare and public sector. Its offerings help organizations optimize operations, reduce costs, mitigate risks, and realize data-driven decision making.
Hochschild Mining plc is a leading British-based silver and gold mining business operating in North, Central, and South America. It is headquartered in Lima, Peru, with a corporate office in London, is listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 250 Index. The main shareholder is the Peruvian businessman Eduardo Hochschild.
AI vs CMCL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2026 vs Q3 FY2024
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $75.1M | $46.9M |
| Net Profit | $-104.7M | $3.3M |
| Gross Margin | 40.4% | 41.2% |
| Operating Margin | -149.2% | 18.6% |
| Net Margin | -139.3% | 7.0% |
| Revenue YoY | -20.3% | 13.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | -58.7% | -33.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.75 | $0.13 |
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 | $75.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $70.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $108.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $98.8M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $94.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $87.2M | $46.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $86.6M | $50.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $78.4M | $38.5M |
| Q4 25 | $-104.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-116.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-79.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-80.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-66.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-62.8M | $3.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-72.9M | $10.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-72.6M | $2.1M |
| Q4 25 | 40.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 37.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 62.1% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 59.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 61.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 59.8% | 41.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 59.6% | 45.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 57.8% | 35.9% |
| Q4 25 | -149.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -177.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -81.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -88.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -79.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -83.2% | 18.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | -95.1% | 32.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | -105.3% | 13.8% |
| Q4 25 | -139.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -166.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -73.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -81.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -69.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -72.0% | 7.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | -84.2% | 20.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | -92.6% | 5.4% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.75 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.86 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.60 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.62 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.52 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.50 | $0.13 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.59 | $0.42 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.60 | $0.07 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $675.0M | $7.2M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $771.9M | $231.0M |
| Total Assets | $961.3M | $339.7M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $675.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $711.9M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $742.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $724.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $730.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $762.5M | $7.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $750.4M | $15.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $723.3M | $1.8M |
| Q4 25 | $771.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $798.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $838.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $860.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $859.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $874.9M | $231.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $873.4M | $231.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $898.0M | $220.3M |
| Q4 25 | $961.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $968.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $339.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | $338.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.1B | $321.8M |
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 | $-46.5M | $4.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-46.9M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -62.4% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.5% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 1.40× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-93.2M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $-46.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-33.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-22.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-38.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.0M | $4.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $21.3M | $19.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-39.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-46.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-34.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-22.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-39.5M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.8M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-45.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | -62.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -48.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -22.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -41.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 21.7% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -57.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.1% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.9% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.8% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.40× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.87× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
AI
| License And Service | $70.2M | 93% |
| Professional Services | $4.9M | 7% |
CMCL
Segment breakdown not available.
