vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC. (ASMB) and Oak Valley Bancorp (OVLY). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Oak Valley Bancorp is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($21.3M vs $10.8M, roughly 2.0× ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC.). Oak Valley Bancorp runs the higher net margin — 29.8% vs -85.2%, a 115.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (57.6% vs 10.4%). Oak Valley Bancorp produced more free cash flow last quarter ($24.6M 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.
Valley National Bancorp, doing business as Valley Bank, is a regional bank holding company headquartered in Morristown, New Jersey, with approximately $64 billion in assets. Its principal subsidiary, Valley National Bank, currently operates over 230 branch locations and commercial banking offices across New Jersey, New York, Florida, Alabama, California, and Illinois. Valley Bank is one of the largest commercial banks headquartered in New Jersey.
ASMB vs OVLY — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $10.8M | $21.3M |
| Net Profit | $-9.2M | $6.3M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -100.9% | 38.3% |
| Net Margin | -85.2% | 29.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 57.6% | 10.4% |
| Net Profit YoY | 4.3% | 5.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.72 | $0.76 |
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 | — | $21.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.8M | $21.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.6M | $19.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.4M | $19.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.4M | $19.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.8M | $19.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.5M | $19.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.8M | $18.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | $6.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-9.2M | $6.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-10.2M | $5.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-8.8M | $5.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $6.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-9.6M | $7.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-11.2M | $5.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-9.1M | $5.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | 38.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | -100.9% | 40.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | -115.2% | 36.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | -105.5% | 35.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 40.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | -160.1% | 50.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | -143.0% | 39.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | -185.5% | 38.5% |
| Q4 25 | — | 29.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | -85.2% | 31.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | -105.9% | 28.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | -93.6% | 27.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 31.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -140.4% | 37.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | -130.7% | 30.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -156.9% | 30.5% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.76 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.72 | $0.81 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.33 | $0.67 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.17 | $0.64 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.73 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.51 | $0.89 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.98 | $0.71 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.66 | $0.69 |
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 | $232.2M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $182.7M | $208.0M |
| Total Assets | $240.0M | $2.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $232.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $22.5M | $247.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $24.0M | $198.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $23.4M | $209.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $38.3M | $168.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $28.5M | $213.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $19.2M | $180.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $18.7M | $169.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | $208.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $182.7M | $198.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $18.1M | $185.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $27.1M | $183.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $33.4M | $183.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $26.0M | $185.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $34.7M | $171.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $32.6M | $166.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $240.0M | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $80.8M | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.0M | $1.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $119.2M | $1.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $100.3M | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $115.3M | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $119.9M | $1.8B |
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 | $28.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-15.2M | $24.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -140.7% | 115.4% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.4% | 19.3% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 4.53× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $41.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $28.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-15.1M | $7.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-16.8M | $5.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-23.4M | $8.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-51.1M | $25.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-15.2M | $8.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-17.1M | $4.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-18.4M | $8.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | $24.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-15.2M | $6.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $4.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $6.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-51.1M | $23.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $8.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-17.1M | $3.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-18.4M | $8.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | 115.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | -140.7% | 30.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 20.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 35.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | -695.2% | 123.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 44.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -200.6% | 18.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | -317.7% | 43.4% |
| Q4 25 | — | 19.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.4% | 3.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.0% | 8.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.0% | 6.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.4% | 9.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.0% | 0.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.2% | 3.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.2% | 0.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | 4.53× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.07× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.00× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.50× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 4.27× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.22× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.71× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.45× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
