vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Beam Therapeutics Inc. (BEAM) and GCL Global Holdings Ltd (GCL). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Beam Therapeutics Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($114.1M vs $98.7M, roughly 1.2× GCL Global Holdings Ltd). Beam Therapeutics Inc. runs the higher net margin — 214.1% vs -5.2%, a 219.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. GCL Global Holdings Ltd produced more free cash flow last quarter ($-5.2M vs $-87.0M).
Beam Therapeutics Inc. is an American biotechnology company conducting research in the field of gene therapies and genome editing. The company is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In the development of therapies, the company relies on CRISPR base editing and prime editing, whereby single nucleotides in a DNA sequence can be enzymatically modified without producing double-strand breaks.
GCL Global Holdings Ltd is a leading clean energy enterprise focusing on R&D, production and operation of photovoltaic products, energy storage systems and low-carbon energy solutions. Its main markets cover Asia, Europe, North America, serving utility, commercial and residential distributed energy users across the globe.
BEAM vs GCL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $114.1M | $98.7M |
| Net Profit | $244.3M | $-5.1M |
| Gross Margin | — | 11.0% |
| Operating Margin | -15.3% | -6.7% |
| Net Margin | 214.1% | -5.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 279.5% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | 370.4% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.53 | $-0.04 |
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 | $114.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $98.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $142.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $36.1M | ||
| Q4 23 | $316.2M | — |
| Q4 25 | $244.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-5.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $5.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-1.9M | ||
| Q4 23 | $142.8M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 11.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 15.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 16.2% | ||
| Q4 23 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | -15.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -6.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -5.6% | ||
| Q4 23 | 42.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | 214.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -5.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 3.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -5.2% | ||
| Q4 23 | 45.2% | — |
| Q4 25 | $2.53 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-0.04 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.05 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | $1.91 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $1.2B | $16.6M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $52.0M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.2B | $33.1M |
| Total Assets | $1.5B | $159.9M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 1.57× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $16.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $18.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.7M | ||
| Q4 23 | $1.2B | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $52.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $11.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $33.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $35.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $15.9M | ||
| Q4 23 | $981.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $159.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $101.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $49.6M | ||
| Q4 23 | $1.5B | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.57× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.33× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | — |
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 | $-83.3M | $-4.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-87.0M | $-5.2M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -76.3% | -5.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 3.3% | 0.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | -0.34× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $-83.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-4.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-10.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $6.1M | ||
| Q4 23 | $135.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-87.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-5.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-10.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | $131.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | -76.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -5.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -7.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | 41.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | 3.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | 1.1% | — |
| Q4 25 | -0.34× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -1.84× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | 0.95× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
BEAM
| Pfizer | $109.1M | 96% |
| Other | $5.0M | 4% |
GCL
Segment breakdown not available.
