vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Ambow Education Holding Ltd. (AMBO) and Great Elm Group, Inc. (GEG). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Great Elm Group, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($3.0M vs $2.8M, roughly 1.1× Ambow Education Holding Ltd.). Ambow Education Holding Ltd. runs the higher net margin — 64.2% vs -549.6%, a 613.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Ambow Education Holding Ltd. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (15.3% vs -14.1%).
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.
Great Elm Group, Inc. is an alternative asset management firm that offers private credit products, real asset investment vehicles, and customized capital solutions for small and medium-sized enterprises. It primarily serves institutional investors and high-net-worth individuals across the North American market.
AMBO vs GEG — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2025 vs Q2 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $2.8M | $3.0M |
| Net Profit | $1.8M | $-16.5M |
| Gross Margin | 53.3% | 99.5% |
| Operating Margin | 11.9% | -140.6% |
| Net Margin | 64.2% | -549.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 15.3% | -14.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | 1343.1% | -1507.1% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.03 | $-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 | — | $3.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $10.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $3.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $4.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | $-16.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-7.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-4.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $123.0K | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-3.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | 99.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 37.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 53.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 86.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 84.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 55.6% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | -140.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -34.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -79.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -56.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -50.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.7% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -67.1% |
| Q4 25 | — | -549.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -73.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 64.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -140.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 33.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 66.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.1% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -111.2% |
| Q4 25 | — | $-0.50 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-0.24 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.03 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-0.17 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.04 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.08 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.00 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-0.10 |
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 | $51.2M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $8.6M | $55.8M |
| Total Assets | $23.2M | $135.5M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $51.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $53.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.1M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $31.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $44.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $44.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $44.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | $55.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $73.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $8.6M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $57.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $62.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $63.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.6M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $65.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | $135.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $155.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $23.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $137.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $138.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $137.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $17.6M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $148.4M |
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 | — | $-1.9M |
| 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.
| Q4 25 | — | $-1.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-1.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-4.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-5.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.4M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -3.44× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -2.19× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
AMBO
Segment breakdown not available.
GEG
| Management Service Base | $1.8M | 60% |
| Other | $1.2M | 40% |
