vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC. (ASMB) and Canterbury Park Holding Corp (CPHC). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Canterbury Park Holding Corp is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($12.4M vs $10.8M, roughly 1.2× ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC.). Canterbury Park Holding Corp runs the higher net margin — -3.1% vs -85.2%, a 82.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (57.6% vs 3.9%). Canterbury Park Holding Corp produced more free cash flow last quarter ($-611.3K vs $-15.2M).
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. is an American biotechnology company founded in 2004 that develops and manufactures systems for gene sequencing and some novel real time biological observation. PacBio has two principal sequencing platforms: single-molecule real-time sequencing (SMRT), based on the properties of zero-mode waveguides and sequencing by binding (SBB) chemistry, which uses native nucleotides and scarless incorporation for DNA binding and extension.
Canterbury Park, is a horse racing track in Shakopee, Minnesota, United States. Canterbury Park Holding Corporation hosts parimutuel wagering on live thoroughbred and quarter horse racing at its facilities in Shakopee and parimutuel wagering on races held at out-of-state racetracks that are simulcast to the racetrack. In addition, the Canterbury Park Card Casino operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and is also regulated by the Minnesota Racing Commission. Casino games include blackjack...
ASMB vs CPHC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $10.8M | $12.4M |
| Net Profit | $-9.2M | $-390.1K |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -100.9% | 2.6% |
| Net Margin | -85.2% | -3.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 57.6% | 3.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | 4.3% | 68.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.72 | $-0.08 |
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 | — | $12.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.8M | $18.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.6M | $15.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.4M | $13.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.4M | $12.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.8M | $19.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.5M | $16.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.8M | $14.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | $-390.1K | ||
| Q3 25 | $-9.2M | $487.3K | ||
| Q2 25 | $-10.2M | $-327.4K | ||
| Q1 25 | $-8.8M | $-299.2K | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-1.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-9.6M | $2.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-11.2M | $338.3K | ||
| Q1 24 | $-9.1M | $998.2K |
| Q4 25 | — | 2.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | -100.9% | 5.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -115.2% | 2.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -105.5% | 4.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -0.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | -160.1% | 18.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -143.0% | 6.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -185.5% | 12.5% |
| Q4 25 | — | -3.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | -85.2% | 2.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -105.9% | -2.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | -93.6% | -2.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -10.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | -140.4% | 10.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | -130.7% | 2.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | -156.9% | 7.1% |
| Q4 25 | — | $-0.08 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.72 | $0.10 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.33 | $-0.06 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.17 | $-0.06 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-0.25 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.51 | $0.40 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.98 | $0.07 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.66 | $0.20 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $22.5M | $17.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $182.7M | $83.9M |
| Total Assets | $240.0M | $112.6M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $17.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $22.5M | $16.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $24.0M | $16.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $23.4M | $15.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $38.3M | $15.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $28.5M | $21.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $19.2M | $23.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $18.7M | $25.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | $83.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $182.7M | $84.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $18.1M | $83.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $27.1M | $83.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $33.4M | $84.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $26.0M | $85.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $34.7M | $83.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $32.6M | $82.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | $112.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $240.0M | $114.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $80.8M | $114.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.0M | $112.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $119.2M | $109.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $100.3M | $114.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $115.3M | $111.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $119.9M | $105.6M |
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 | $-15.1M | $-103.4K |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-15.2M | $-611.3K |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -140.7% | -4.9% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.4% | 4.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $4.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $-103.4K | ||
| Q3 25 | $-15.1M | $1.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-16.8M | $4.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-23.4M | $3.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-51.1M | $-2.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-15.2M | $2.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-17.1M | $5.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-18.4M | $1.6M |
| Q4 25 | — | $-611.3K | ||
| Q3 25 | $-15.2M | $-395.3K | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $3.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-51.1M | $-6.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-25 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-17.1M | $1.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-18.4M | $-601.0K |
| Q4 25 | — | -4.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | -140.7% | -2.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 20.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 19.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | -695.2% | -55.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -0.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | -200.6% | 11.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | -317.7% | -4.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | 4.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.4% | 9.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.0% | 7.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.0% | 6.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.4% | 32.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.0% | 11.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.2% | 22.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.2% | 15.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.56× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.12× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 15.95× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.62× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
ASMB
Segment breakdown not available.
CPHC
| Casino | $9.5M | 76% |
| Other | $1.9M | 15% |
| Food And Beverage | $1.0M | 8% |
