vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Aeluma, Inc. (ALMU) and Marwynn Holdings, Inc. (MWYN). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Marwynn Holdings, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($2.3M vs $1.3M, roughly 1.8× Aeluma, Inc.). Marwynn Holdings, Inc. runs the higher net margin — -116.0% vs -145.7%, a 29.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Marwynn Holdings, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (-13.3% vs -21.1%).
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.
Marwynn Holdings, Inc. is a Canada-based investment holding company focused on acquiring, managing, and scaling middle-market businesses primarily across North America. Its core operating segments cover industrial products, consumer goods, and technology-enabled services, targeting sustainable long-term value creation for its stakeholders.
ALMU vs MWYN — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2026 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.3M | $2.3M |
| Net Profit | $-1.9M | $-2.7M |
| Gross Margin | 27.8% | 42.4% |
| Operating Margin | -163.6% | -115.8% |
| Net Margin | -145.7% | -116.0% |
| Revenue YoY | -21.1% | -13.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | 36.0% | -11713.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.11 | $-0.16 |
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 | $2.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $623.7K |
| Q4 25 | $-1.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.5M | $-2.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $23.4K |
| Q4 25 | 27.8% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 49.4% | 42.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 39.2% |
| Q4 25 | -163.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -116.1% | -115.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 13.5% |
| Q4 25 | -145.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -107.8% | -116.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 3.8% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.11 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.09 | $-0.16 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.00 |
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 | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $40.8M | $2.3M |
| Total Assets | $42.6M | $11.6M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $38.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $25.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $480 |
| Q4 25 | $40.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $40.9M | $2.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.4M |
| Q4 25 | $42.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $42.7M | $11.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $12.6M |
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 | $-251.0K | $-95.1K |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-282.0K | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -22.2% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.4% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $-251.0K | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-815.0K | $-95.1K | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $-282.0K | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | -22.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -74.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | 2.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 15.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
ALMU
Segment breakdown not available.
MWYN
| Other | $1.3M | 57% |
| Revenue From Recyclable Ewaste Materials Sales | $1.0M | 43% |
