vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Mobile Infrastructure Corp (BEEP) and Brookfield Property Partners L.P. (BPYPP). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Brookfield Property Partners L.P. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.8B vs $8.8M, roughly 205.7× Mobile Infrastructure Corp). Brookfield Property Partners L.P. runs the higher net margin — -2.6% vs -85.6%, a 83.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Mobile Infrastructure Corp posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (-4.3% vs -25.6%).
China Mobile is the trade name of both China Mobile Limited and its ultimate controlling shareholder, China Mobile Communications Group Co., Ltd., a Chinese state-owned telecommunications company. It provides mobile voice and multimedia services through its nationwide mobile telecommunications network across mainland China and Hong Kong. China Mobile is the largest wireless carrier in China, with 945.50 million subscribers as of June 2021. China Mobile was ranked #25 in Forbes' Global 2000 in...
Brookfield Property Partners L.P. is a limited partnership that owns office buildings and shopping centers/shopping malls, as well as minority limited partner interests in investment funds sponsored by affiliates that invest in other types of commercial property. It is headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda.
BEEP vs BPYPP — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q2 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $8.8M | $1.8B |
| Net Profit | $-7.5M | $-46.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | — | — |
| Net Margin | -85.6% | -2.6% |
| Revenue YoY | -4.3% | -25.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | -650.5% | 94.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | — |
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 | $8.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $9.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.0M | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.3M | $2.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $8.8M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-7.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-5.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-4.3M | $-46.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-3.9M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-999.0K | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.4M | $-789.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-2.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | -85.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -63.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -47.3% | -2.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | -47.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -10.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -13.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -14.6% | -32.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | -23.8% | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $8.3M | $1.7B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $198.3M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $141.3M | $40.2B |
| Total Assets | $382.5M | $98.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.40× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $8.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.6M | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.6M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.7M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.7M | $2.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | $198.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $183.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $186.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $187.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $188.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $132.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $133.6M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $134.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | $141.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $151.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $160.6M | $40.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $164.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $170.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $134.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $107.4M | $48.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $107.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | $382.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $397.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $405.6M | $98.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $409.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $415.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $418.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $417.1M | $132.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $420.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.40× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.21× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.16× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.14× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.11× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.99× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.24× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.25× | — |
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 | $-626.0K | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $-626.0K | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $227.0K | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $0 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $346.0K | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.4M | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
BEEP
| Transient Parkers | $4.5M | 52% |
| Contract Parkers | $2.4M | 28% |
| Base Rent Income | $1.2M | 14% |
| Other | $607.0K | 7% |
BPYPP
Segment breakdown not available.
