vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Mission Produce, Inc. (AVO) and Red Cat Holdings, Inc. (RCAT), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Mission Produce, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($319.0M vs $9.6M, roughly 33.1× Red Cat Holdings, Inc.). Mission Produce, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 5.0% vs -166.0%, a 171.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Red Cat Holdings, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (988.2% vs -10.0%). Mission Produce, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($55.6M vs $-24.5M). Over the past eight quarters, Red Cat Holdings, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (457.0% CAGR vs 11.0%).
Produce Co., Ltd. was a Japanese video game company. Founded on April 6, 1990 by former Irem employees, it developed a number of games for both Enix and Hudson Soft. Produce! have created games for arcades and for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, Nintendo 64, PlayStation, and PC Engine systems.
Mega Cat Studios is an American video game development and publishing company located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It was founded in 2015 by James Deighan, Nick Mann, and Zack Manko.
AVO vs RCAT — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q3 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $319.0M | $9.6M |
| Net Profit | $16.0M | $-16.0M |
| Gross Margin | 17.5% | 6.6% |
| Operating Margin | 8.8% | -181.7% |
| Net Margin | 5.0% | -166.0% |
| Revenue YoY | -10.0% | 988.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | -7.5% | -29.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.23 | $-0.16 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $319.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $357.7M | $9.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $380.3M | $1.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $334.2M | $1.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $354.4M | $0 | ||
| Q3 24 | $324.0M | $886.4K | ||
| Q2 24 | $297.6M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $258.7M | $5.8M |
| Q4 25 | $16.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $14.7M | $-16.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.1M | $-13.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.9M | $-23.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $17.3M | $-13.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.4M | $-12.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $0 | $-5.5M |
| Q4 25 | 17.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 12.6% | 6.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.5% | 33.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.4% | -52.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 15.7% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.4% | -54.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 11.1% | 18.8% |
| Q4 25 | 8.8% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.9% | -181.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.8% | -1120.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.8% | -765.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.2% | -1400.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.1% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.1% | -76.0% |
| Q4 25 | 5.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.1% | -166.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.8% | -1176.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.2% | -1418.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.8% | -1400.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -93.9% |
| Q4 25 | $0.23 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.21 | $-0.16 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.04 | $-0.15 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.05 | $-0.27 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.25 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.17 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.10 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.00 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $64.8M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $95.8M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $587.3M | $253.3M |
| Total Assets | $983.0M | $286.0M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.16× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $64.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $43.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $36.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $40.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $58.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $49.5M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $46.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $39.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | $95.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $131.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $147.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $117.9M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $113.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $134.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $170.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $156.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | $587.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $568.7M | $253.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $552.3M | $95.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $550.8M | $28.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $547.3M | $27.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $527.3M | $32.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $513.3M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $505.1M | $49.6M |
| Q4 25 | $983.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.0B | $286.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | $121.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $997.8M | $59.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $971.5M | $51.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $959.9M | $38.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $966.9M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $937.5M | $55.3M |
| Q4 25 | 0.16× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.23× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.27× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.21× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.21× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.25× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.33× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.31× | — |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $67.2M | $-23.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $55.6M | $-24.5M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 17.4% | -254.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 3.6% | 6.9% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 4.20× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $37.2M | $-64.1M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $67.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $34.4M | $-23.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-11.8M | $-12.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.2M | $-15.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $38.0M | $-10.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $42.5M | $-2.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.5M | $-4.1M |
| Q4 25 | $55.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $22.6M | $-24.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-25.0M | $-13.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-16.0M | $-16.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $31.1M | $-10.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $34.9M | $-2.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-4.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-400.0K | $-4.2M |
| Q4 25 | 17.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.3% | -254.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | -6.6% | -1170.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | -4.8% | -992.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.8% | -276.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | -1.5% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -0.2% | -71.1% |
| Q4 25 | 3.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.3% | 6.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.5% | 27.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.4% | 16.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.3% | 11.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.6% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.8% | 0.8% |
| Q4 25 | 4.20× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.34× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.81× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -0.31× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.20× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.43× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.49× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
AVO
| Avocado | $256.9M | 81% |
| Blueberry | $36.5M | 11% |
| Mango | $18.7M | 6% |
| Other | $6.9M | 2% |
RCAT
| Products | $8.5M | 88% |
| Services | $1.2M | 12% |
