vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Amber International Holding Ltd (AMBR) and Marwynn Holdings, Inc. (MWYN). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Marwynn Holdings, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($2.3M vs $1.9M, roughly 1.2× Amber International Holding Ltd). Amber International Holding Ltd runs the higher net margin — 87.5% vs -116.0%, a 203.6% 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.
Marwynn Holdings, Inc. is a Canada-based investment holding company focused on acquiring, managing, and scaling middle-market businesses primarily across North America. Its core operating segments cover industrial products, consumer goods, and technology-enabled services, targeting sustainable long-term value creation for its stakeholders.
AMBR vs MWYN — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.9M | $2.3M |
| Net Profit | $1.6M | $-2.7M |
| Gross Margin | 39.9% | 42.4% |
| Operating Margin | 1.5% | -115.8% |
| Net Margin | 87.5% | -116.0% |
| Revenue YoY | — | -13.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | -11713.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.02 | $-0.16 |
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 | — | $2.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $623.7K |
| Q3 25 | — | $-2.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.6M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $23.4K |
| Q3 25 | — | 42.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 39.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 39.2% |
| Q3 25 | — | -115.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 13.5% |
| Q3 25 | — | -116.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 87.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 3.8% |
| Q3 25 | — | $-0.16 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.02 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.00 |
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 | $2.3M |
| Total Assets | $248.2M | $11.6M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $25.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $480 |
| Q3 25 | — | $2.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $91.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.4M |
| Q3 25 | — | $11.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $248.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $12.6M |
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 | $-95.1K |
| 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.
| Q3 25 | — | $-95.1K | ||
| Q2 25 | $-4.1M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.49× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
AMBR
Segment breakdown not available.
MWYN
| Other | $1.3M | 57% |
| Revenue From Recyclable Ewaste Materials Sales | $1.0M | 43% |
