vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Amber International Holding Ltd (AMBR) and CapsoVision, Inc (CV). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
CapsoVision, Inc is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($3.5M vs $1.9M, roughly 1.9× Amber International Holding Ltd). Amber International Holding Ltd runs the higher net margin — 87.5% vs -223.9%, a 311.4% gap on every dollar of revenue.
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.
CapsoVision, Inc. is a medical technology firm specializing in the development and manufacturing of advanced capsule endoscopy systems and supporting diagnostic solutions. Its non-invasive gastrointestinal imaging products are supplied to hospitals, gastroenterology clinics and medical specialists across global markets, supporting more accurate detection of digestive diseases and improved patient care experiences.
AMBR vs CV — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.9M | $3.5M |
| Net Profit | $1.6M | $-7.9M |
| Gross Margin | 39.9% | 54.1% |
| Operating Margin | 1.5% | -226.7% |
| Net Margin | 87.5% | -223.9% |
| Revenue YoY | — | — |
| Net Profit YoY | — | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.02 | $-0.17 |
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.
| Q3 25 | — | $3.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.9M | $3.3M |
| Q3 25 | — | $-7.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.6M | $-4.6M |
| Q3 25 | — | 54.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 39.9% | 54.6% |
| Q3 25 | — | -226.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.5% | -140.3% |
| Q3 25 | — | -223.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 87.5% | -139.5% |
| Q3 25 | — | $-0.17 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.02 | $-2.02 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $25.8M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $91.3M | $20.4M |
| Total Assets | $248.2M | $25.7M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $25.8M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $20.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $91.3M | $-139.0M |
| Q3 25 | — | $25.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $248.2M | $9.5M |
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 | $-4.1M | $-5.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $-5.7M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | -160.5% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 0.3% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | -2.49× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | — | $-5.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-4.1M | $-9.5M |
| Q3 25 | — | $-5.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-9.6M |
| Q3 25 | — | -160.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -289.0% |
| Q3 25 | — | 0.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.1% |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.49× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
AMBR
Segment breakdown not available.
CV
| Products | $2.5M | 71% |
| Other | $1.0M | 29% |
