vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Amber International Holding Ltd (AMBR) and Functional Brands Inc. (MEHA). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Amber International Holding Ltd is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.9M vs $1.7M, roughly 1.1× Functional Brands Inc.). Amber International Holding Ltd runs the higher net margin — 87.5% vs 15.3%, a 72.3% 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.
Fortune Brands Innovations, Inc. is an American manufacturer of home and security products, headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois. Its portfolio of businesses and brands includes Moen and the House of Rohl; outdoor living and security products from Therma-Tru, Larson, Fiberon, Master Lock and SentrySafe; and MasterBrand Cabinets. Fortune Brands is a Fortune 500 company and part of the S&P 400 Index. As of December 31, 2021, the company reported employing approximately 28,000 associates and pos...
AMBR vs MEHA — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.9M | $1.7M |
| Net Profit | $1.6M | $259.0K |
| Gross Margin | 39.9% | 57.7% |
| Operating Margin | 1.5% | -4.6% |
| Net Margin | 87.5% | 15.3% |
| Revenue YoY | — | — |
| Net Profit YoY | — | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.02 | $0.04 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align.
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 | $1.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $141.3K |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $91.3M | $604.7K |
| Total Assets | $248.2M | $8.2M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.23× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | — | $1.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $25.8M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $141.3K | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $604.7K | ||
| Q2 25 | $91.3M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $8.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $248.2M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | 0.23× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — |
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 | $1.5M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $1.5M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 86.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 0.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | -2.49× | 5.71× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | — | $1.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-4.1M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $1.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | — | 86.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | — | 0.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | — | 5.71× | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.49× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
