vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Amber International Holding Ltd (AMBR) and Hut 8 Corp. (HUT). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Hut 8 Corp. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($88.5M vs $1.9M, roughly 47.1× Amber International Holding Ltd). Amber International Holding Ltd runs the higher net margin — 87.5% vs -316.0%, a 403.6% 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.
Tropical Hut is a Filipino chain of fast food restaurants owned by Mercury Group of Companies, Inc. It is the 7th oldest food chain in the Philippines and older than Jollibee (1978) and McDonald's Philippines (1981).
AMBR vs HUT — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.9M | $88.5M |
| Net Profit | $1.6M | $-279.7M |
| Gross Margin | 39.9% | 60.4% |
| Operating Margin | 1.5% | -491.4% |
| Net Margin | 87.5% | -316.0% |
| Revenue YoY | — | 179.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | -283.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.02 | $-2.45 |
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 | — | $88.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $83.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.9M | $41.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $21.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $31.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $43.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $35.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $51.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | $-279.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $50.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.6M | $137.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-133.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $152.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $647.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-71.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $250.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | 60.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 61.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 39.9% | 47.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 14.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 35.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 59.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 41.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 45.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | -491.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 87.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -676.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -3.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -246.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | -316.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 60.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 87.5% | 332.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -613.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 480.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -204.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 484.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | $-2.45 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.43 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.02 | $1.18 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-1.30 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.41 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.01 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-0.78 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.76 |
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 | $44.9M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $91.3M | $1.4B |
| Total Assets | $248.2M | $2.8B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $44.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $33.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $25.8M | $216.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $108.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $85.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $11.5M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $300.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $297.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $328.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $177.6M |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $91.3M | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $960.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $976.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $703.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $660.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $732.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | $2.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $248.2M | $2.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $999.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.31× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.42× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.50× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.24× |
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 | $-57.4M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | -2.49× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $-57.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $770.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | $-4.1M | $-48.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-33.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-21.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-4.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-16.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-26.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.02× | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.49× | -0.36× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -0.14× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -6.49× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -0.11× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
AMBR
Segment breakdown not available.
HUT
| High Performance Computing Colocation And Cloud | $81.9M | 93% |
| Power | $5.0M | 6% |
| Digital Infrastructure | $1.6M | 2% |
