vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC. (ASMB) and Metalpha Technology Holding Ltd (MATH). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Metalpha Technology Holding Ltd is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($12.0M vs $10.8M, roughly 1.1× ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC.). Metalpha Technology Holding Ltd runs the higher net margin — -24.0% vs -85.2%, a 61.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (57.6% vs -39.0%).
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.
Metalpha Technology Holding LtdMATHEarnings & Financial Report
Metalpha Technology Holding Ltd is a global fintech firm specializing in digital asset wealth management, institutional-grade crypto investment services, and Web3 ecosystem infrastructure support. It serves professional investors, financial institutions, and high-net-worth clients across Asia, North America and Europe, with core segments including structured digital asset products, risk management solutions and DeFi technology development.
ASMB vs MATH — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $10.8M | $12.0M |
| Net Profit | $-9.2M | $-2.9M |
| Gross Margin | — | 28.3% |
| Operating Margin | -100.9% | -24.2% |
| Net Margin | -85.2% | -24.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 57.6% | -39.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | 4.3% | -147.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.72 | $-0.07 |
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 | $12.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.6M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.4M | $24.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.8M | $19.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.5M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.8M | — |
| Q3 25 | $-9.2M | $-2.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-10.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-8.8M | $9.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-9.6M | $6.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-11.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-9.1M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | 28.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 85.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 49.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | -100.9% | -24.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | -115.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -105.5% | 39.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -160.1% | 38.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -143.0% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -185.5% | — |
| Q3 25 | -85.2% | -24.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -105.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -93.6% | 39.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -140.4% | 30.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | -130.7% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -156.9% | — |
| Q3 25 | $-0.72 | $-0.07 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.33 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.17 | $0.25 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.51 | $0.16 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.98 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.66 | — |
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 | $10.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $101.2K |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $182.7M | $35.1M |
| Total Assets | $240.0M | $413.8M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.00× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | $22.5M | $10.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $24.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $23.4M | $6.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $38.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $28.5M | $3.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $19.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $18.7M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $101.2K | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $188.0K | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $275.1K | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | $182.7M | $35.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $18.1M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $27.1M | $36.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $33.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $26.0M | $25.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $34.7M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $32.6M | — |
| Q3 25 | $240.0M | $413.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $80.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.0M | $246.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $119.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $100.3M | $237.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $115.3M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $119.9M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | 0.00× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.01× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.01× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 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 | $-15.1M | $3.3M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-15.2M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -140.7% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.4% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | $-15.1M | $3.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-16.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-23.4M | $16.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-51.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-15.2M | $-16.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-17.1M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-18.4M | — |
| Q3 25 | $-15.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-51.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-17.1M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-18.4M | — |
| Q3 25 | -140.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -695.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -200.6% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -317.7% | — |
| 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% | — |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.64× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -2.66× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
