vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Aeluma, Inc. (ALMU) and Amber International Holding Ltd (AMBR). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Amber International Holding Ltd is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.9M vs $1.3M, roughly 1.5× Aeluma, Inc.). Amber International Holding Ltd runs the higher net margin — 87.5% vs -145.7%, a 233.2% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Aeluma, Inc. is a U.S.-headquartered technology firm focused on the design, development, and production of high-performance optoelectronic components and semiconductor products. Its core offerings include photonic sensors and laser diodes, serving the LiDAR, 5G/6G communication, industrial sensing, and automotive markets across North America and the Asia-Pacific region.
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.
ALMU vs AMBR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2026 vs Q2 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.3M | $1.9M |
| Net Profit | $-1.9M | $1.6M |
| Gross Margin | 27.8% | 39.9% |
| Operating Margin | -163.6% | 1.5% |
| Net Margin | -145.7% | 87.5% |
| Revenue YoY | -21.1% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | 36.0% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.11 | $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 | $1.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.9M |
| Q4 25 | $-1.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.6M |
| Q4 25 | 27.8% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 49.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 39.9% |
| Q4 25 | -163.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -116.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.5% |
| Q4 25 | -145.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -107.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 87.5% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.11 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.09 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.02 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $38.6M | $25.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $40.8M | $91.3M |
| Total Assets | $42.6M | $248.2M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $38.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $25.9M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $25.8M |
| Q4 25 | $40.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $40.9M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $91.3M |
| Q4 25 | $42.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $42.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $248.2M |
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 | $-251.0K | $-4.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-282.0K | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -22.2% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.4% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | -2.49× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $-251.0K | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-815.0K | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-4.1M |
| Q4 25 | $-282.0K | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | -22.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -74.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | 2.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 15.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -2.49× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
