vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC. (ASMB) and Greenlane Holdings, Inc. (GNLN). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($10.8M vs $10.0M, roughly 1.1× Greenlane Holdings, Inc.). Greenlane Holdings, Inc. runs the higher net margin — -43.4% vs -85.2%, a 41.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (57.6% vs -54.5%). Greenlane Holdings, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($-3.4M 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.
Greenlane Holdings, Inc. is a leading global distributor of premium consumption accessories, wellness products, and lifestyle goods catering to the cannabis, vaping, and natural health sectors. It serves retail partners, brand manufacturers, and end consumers across North America and select international markets, providing end-to-end supply chain, brand development, and integrated sales support services.
ASMB vs GNLN — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2023
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $10.8M | $10.0M |
| Net Profit | $-9.2M | $-4.3M |
| Gross Margin | — | 46.1% |
| Operating Margin | -100.9% | -31.5% |
| Net Margin | -85.2% | -43.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 57.6% | -54.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | 4.3% | 62.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.72 | $61.48 |
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 | $10.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.6M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.5M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.8M | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $10.0M |
| Q3 25 | $-9.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-10.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-8.8M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-9.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-11.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-9.1M | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $-4.3M |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | 46.1% |
| Q3 25 | -100.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -115.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -105.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -160.1% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -143.0% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -185.5% | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | -31.5% |
| Q3 25 | -85.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -105.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -93.6% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -140.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -130.7% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -156.9% | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | -43.4% |
| Q3 25 | $-0.72 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.33 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.17 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.51 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.98 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.66 | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $61.48 |
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 | $463.0K |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $7.3M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $182.7M | $11.1M |
| Total Assets | $240.0M | $38.1M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.65× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | $22.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $24.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $23.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $38.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $28.5M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $19.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $18.7M | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $463.0K |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $7.3M |
| Q3 25 | $182.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $18.1M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $27.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $33.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $26.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $34.7M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $32.6M | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $11.1M |
| Q3 25 | $240.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $80.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $119.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $100.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $115.3M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $119.9M | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $38.1M |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | 0.65× |
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 | $-3.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-15.2M | $-3.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -140.7% | -33.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.4% | 3.7% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $-2.8M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | $-15.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-16.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-23.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-51.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-15.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-17.1M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-18.4M | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $-3.0M |
| Q3 25 | $-15.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-51.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-17.1M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-18.4M | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $-3.4M |
| Q3 25 | -140.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -695.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -200.6% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -317.7% | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | -33.6% |
| Q3 25 | 0.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.2% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.2% | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | 3.7% |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
