vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Ambow Education Holding Ltd. (AMBO) and EUDA Health Holdings Ltd (EUDA). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Ambow Education Holding Ltd. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($2.8M vs $1.7M, roughly 1.6× EUDA Health Holdings Ltd). Ambow Education Holding Ltd. runs the higher net margin — 64.2% vs -142.1%, a 206.3% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Ambow Education Holding Ltd. is a China-focused education service provider that offers personalized learning solutions, professional career training programs, and K-12 after-school tutoring services. It partners with educational institutions and enterprises to deliver technology-integrated learning resources for learners of all age groups across mainland China.
EUDA Health Holdings Ltd is a digital health enterprise focused on evidence-based mental wellness solutions. It offers AI-powered mental health assessment tools, therapy matching services, and personalized care programs, primarily serving consumer and corporate clients across the Asia-Pacific region with core segments including mental health screening, employee wellness programs and consumer mental support platforms.
AMBO vs EUDA — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2023
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $2.8M | $1.7M |
| Net Profit | $1.8M | $-2.4M |
| Gross Margin | 53.3% | 23.8% |
| Operating Margin | 11.9% | -116.4% |
| Net Margin | 64.2% | -142.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 15.3% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | 1343.1% | -973.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.03 | $-0.12 |
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.
| Q2 25 | $2.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.4M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $2.7M | — | ||
| Q1 23 | — | $1.7M | ||
| Q2 22 | $16.4M | — |
| Q2 25 | $1.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $123.0K | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-1.0M | — | ||
| Q1 23 | — | $-2.4M | ||
| Q2 22 | $-11.0M | — |
| Q2 25 | 53.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 55.6% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 44.7% | — | ||
| Q1 23 | — | 23.8% | ||
| Q2 22 | 9.2% | — |
| Q2 25 | 11.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.7% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | -27.7% | — | ||
| Q1 23 | — | -116.4% | ||
| Q2 22 | -13.7% | — |
| Q2 25 | 64.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.1% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | -36.7% | — | ||
| Q1 23 | — | -142.1% | ||
| Q2 22 | -67.1% | — |
| Q2 25 | $0.03 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.00 | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-0.02 | — | ||
| Q1 23 | — | $-0.12 | ||
| Q2 22 | $-0.05 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $4.1M | $837.3K |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $8.6M | $-6.0M |
| Total Assets | $23.2M | $25.5M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q2 25 | $4.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $6.9M | — | ||
| Q1 23 | — | $837.3K | ||
| Q2 22 | $9.2M | — |
| Q2 25 | $8.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.6M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $7.4M | — | ||
| Q1 23 | — | $-6.0M | ||
| Q2 22 | $9.4M | — |
| Q2 25 | $23.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $17.6M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $28.8M | — | ||
| Q1 23 | — | $25.5M | ||
| Q2 22 | $136.4M | — |
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 | — | $-469.9K |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — | ||
| Q1 23 | — | $-469.9K | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
