vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Aeluma, Inc. (ALMU) and Serve Robotics Inc. (SERV). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Aeluma, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.3M vs $881.5K, roughly 1.4× Serve Robotics Inc.). Aeluma, Inc. runs the higher net margin — -145.7% vs -3888.1%, a 3742.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Serve Robotics Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (400.1% vs -21.1%). Aeluma, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($-282.0K vs $-46.1M).
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.
Ecovacs Robotics is a Chinese technology company. It is best known for developing in-home robotic appliances. The company was founded in 1998 by Qian Dongqi and is headquartered in Suzhou, China. According to Global Asia, Ecovacs Robotics had more than 60% of the Chinese market for robots by 2013. In 2023, Nikkei Asia had reported that the market capitalisation of Ecovacs Robotics has grown to near $6.38 billion, which is "roughly 5 times" that of the market capitalisation of rivalling US bas...
ALMU vs SERV — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.3M | $881.5K |
| Net Profit | $-1.9M | $-34.3M |
| Gross Margin | 27.8% | -757.3% |
| Operating Margin | -163.6% | -4572.1% |
| Net Margin | -145.7% | -3888.1% |
| Revenue YoY | -21.1% | 400.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | 36.0% | -161.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.11 | $-0.50 |
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 | $881.5K | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4M | $687.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $642.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $440.5K | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $176.3K | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $222.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $468.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $946.7K |
| Q4 25 | $-1.9M | $-34.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.5M | $-33.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-20.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-13.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-13.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-8.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-9.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-9.0M |
| Q4 25 | 27.8% | -757.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 49.4% | -637.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -445.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -333.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -371.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -70.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 30.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 62.8% |
| Q4 25 | -163.6% | -4572.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | -116.1% | -5067.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -3527.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -3406.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -7701.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -3804.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -1828.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -814.6% |
| Q4 25 | -145.7% | -3888.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | -107.8% | -4806.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -3247.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -3000.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -7441.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -3601.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -1931.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -954.7% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.11 | $-0.50 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.09 | $-0.54 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-0.36 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-0.23 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-0.23 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-0.20 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-0.27 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-0.37 |
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 | $106.2M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $40.8M | $350.7M |
| Total Assets | $42.6M | $367.8M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $38.6M | $106.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $25.9M | $116.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $116.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $197.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $123.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $50.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $28.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $40.8M | $350.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $40.9M | $283.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $207.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $210.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $131.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $56.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $28.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-8.8M |
| Q4 25 | $42.6M | $367.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $42.7M | $299.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $214.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $216.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $139.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $61.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $32.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $4.2M |
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 | $-29.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-282.0K | $-46.1M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -22.2% | -5234.4% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.4% | 1872.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $-117.6M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $-251.0K | $-29.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-815.0K | $-25.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-16.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-9.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-6.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-5.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-5.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-4.1M |
| Q4 25 | $-282.0K | $-46.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.0M | $-36.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-22.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-12.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-11.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-10.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-6.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-4.1M |
| Q4 25 | -22.2% | -5234.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | -74.0% | -5314.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -3426.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -2934.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -6307.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -4529.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -1396.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -431.1% |
| Q4 25 | 2.4% | 1872.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 15.2% | 1649.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 940.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 785.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2755.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2070.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 169.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.4% |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
