vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Beam Therapeutics Inc. (BEAM) and Vera Bradley, Inc. (VRA). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Beam Therapeutics Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($114.1M vs $62.3M, roughly 1.8× Vera Bradley, Inc.). Beam Therapeutics Inc. runs the higher net margin — 214.1% vs -19.9%, a 234.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Beam Therapeutics Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (279.5% vs -22.7%). Vera Bradley, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($-4.5M 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.
Vera Bradley Sales, LLC is an American luggage and handbag design company, founded by Barbara Bradley Baekgaard and Patricia R. Miller in 1982. As of 2019, its home office is in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The company was named after Baekgaard's mother. Its original luxury cotton bag product lines have expanded to include fashion and home accessories, office supplies, and patterned gifts. Many items have distinctive florals, paisleys, or geometric prints with complementary linings, as well as elonga...
BEAM vs VRA — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $114.1M | $62.3M |
| Net Profit | $244.3M | $-12.4M |
| Gross Margin | — | 42.1% |
| Operating Margin | -15.3% | -19.6% |
| Net Margin | 214.1% | -19.9% |
| Revenue YoY | 279.5% | -22.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | 370.4% | 3.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.53 | $-0.44 |
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 | $62.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $70.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $51.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $100.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $70.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $94.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $67.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $46.2M |
| Q4 25 | $244.3M | $-12.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-4.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-33.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-47.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-12.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $5.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-8.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-1.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | 42.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 50.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 44.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 45.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 54.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 49.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 50.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 37.2% |
| Q4 25 | -15.3% | -19.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -6.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -34.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -23.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -11.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -15.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -3.6% |
| Q4 25 | 214.1% | -19.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -6.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -64.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -47.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -18.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 6.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -12.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -4.0% |
| Q4 25 | $2.53 | $-0.44 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-0.17 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-1.20 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-1.62 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-0.46 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.19 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-0.26 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-0.06 |
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 | $10.7M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $10.0M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.2B | $128.1M |
| Total Assets | $1.5B | $243.7M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.08× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | $10.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $15.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $11.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $30.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $13.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $44.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $55.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $77.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | $10.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $10.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | $128.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $140.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $146.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $179.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $225.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $242.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $245.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $259.9M |
| Q4 25 | $1.5B | $243.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $266.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $267.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $306.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $359.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $379.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $368.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $380.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.08× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.07× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.00× | ||
| 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 | $-83.3M | $-4.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-87.0M | $-4.5M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -76.3% | -7.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 3.3% | 0.7% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | -0.34× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $-13.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $-83.3M | $-4.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-5.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-17.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $21.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-22.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-14.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $26.9M |
| Q4 25 | $-87.0M | $-4.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-6.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-19.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $17.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-25.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-1.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-15.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $25.7M |
| Q4 25 | -76.3% | -7.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -8.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -38.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 17.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -35.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -1.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -22.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 55.7% |
| Q4 25 | 3.3% | 0.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 3.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 4.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 3.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 3.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 2.6% |
| Q4 25 | -0.34× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.25× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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% |
VRA
| Bags | $23.9M | 38% |
| Indirect | $12.6M | 20% |
| Transferred At Point In Time | $12.2M | 20% |
| Accessories | $7.2M | 12% |
| Home | $3.5M | 6% |
| Apparel Footwear | $1.8M | 3% |
| Other Products | $1.5M | 2% |
