vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC. (ASMB) and WESTPORT FUEL SYSTEMS INC. (WPRT). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
WESTPORT FUEL SYSTEMS INC. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($12.5M vs $10.8M, roughly 1.2× ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC.). ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC. runs the higher net margin — -85.2% vs -274.8%, a 189.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (57.6% vs -11.4%). WESTPORT FUEL SYSTEMS INC. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($-6.4M 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.
Westport Innovations is a company that develops alternative fuel, low-emissions technologies to allow engines to operate on clean-burning fuels such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), hydrogen and biofuels such as landfill gas. Headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, where the company was founded, Westport also has facilities in France, Sweden, Italy, China, Australia and the United States.
ASMB vs WPRT — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q2 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $10.8M | $12.5M |
| Net Profit | $-9.2M | $-34.3M |
| Gross Margin | — | 6.7% |
| Operating Margin | -100.9% | -8.1% |
| Net Margin | -85.2% | -274.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 57.6% | -11.4% |
| Net Profit YoY | 4.3% | -690.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.72 | $-1.98 |
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 | $12.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.8M | $4.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.5M | $14.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.8M | — |
| Q3 25 | $-9.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-10.2M | $-34.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-8.8M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-9.6M | $-3.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-11.2M | $5.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-9.1M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 6.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 13.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 16.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | -100.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -115.2% | -8.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | -105.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -160.1% | -43.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -143.0% | -54.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -185.5% | — |
| Q3 25 | -85.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -105.9% | -274.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -93.6% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -140.4% | -79.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -130.7% | 41.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | -156.9% | — |
| Q3 25 | $-0.72 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.33 | $-1.98 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.17 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.51 | $-0.22 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.98 | $0.34 | ||
| 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 | $6.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $977.0K |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $182.7M | $108.9M |
| Total Assets | $240.0M | $272.1M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.01× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | $22.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $24.0M | $6.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $23.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $38.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $28.5M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $19.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $18.7M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $977.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | $182.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $18.1M | $108.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $27.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $33.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $26.0M | $149.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $34.7M | $151.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $32.6M | — |
| Q3 25 | $240.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $80.8M | $272.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $119.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $100.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $115.3M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $119.9M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.01× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| 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 | $-5.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-15.2M | $-6.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -140.7% | -51.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.4% | 6.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | $-15.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-16.8M | $-5.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-23.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-51.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-15.2M | $-11.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-17.1M | $1.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-18.4M | — |
| Q3 25 | $-15.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-6.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-51.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-11.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-17.1M | $262.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $-18.4M | — |
| Q3 25 | -140.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -51.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -695.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -243.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -200.6% | 1.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -317.7% | — |
| Q3 25 | 0.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.0% | 6.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.0% | 3.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.2% | 8.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.2% | — |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.26× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
