vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Mobile Infrastructure Corp (BEEP) and CaliberCos Inc. (CWD). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Mobile Infrastructure Corp is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($8.8M vs $4.1M, roughly 2.1× CaliberCos Inc.). Mobile Infrastructure Corp runs the higher net margin — -85.6% vs -188.3%, a 102.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Mobile Infrastructure Corp posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (-4.3% vs -52.5%). Over the past eight quarters, Mobile Infrastructure Corp's revenue compounded faster (-0.4% CAGR vs -57.6%).
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...
CaliberCos Inc. is a U.S.-headquartered alternative asset management firm focused primarily on real estate investments. It offers a diverse suite of investment vehicles covering commercial, residential, and industrial real estate assets, serving institutional investors, high-net-worth individuals, and retail clients across North America. It also delivers asset management, property operation, and value-add real estate development services to support consistent long-term returns for investors.
BEEP vs CWD — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $8.8M | $4.1M |
| Net Profit | $-7.5M | $-7.7M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | — | -196.6% |
| Net Margin | -85.6% | -188.3% |
| Revenue YoY | -4.3% | -52.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | -650.5% | 32.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $1.95 |
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 | $4.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $9.1M | $3.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.0M | $5.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.2M | $7.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.2M | $8.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.8M | $11.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.3M | $8.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $8.8M | $23.0M |
| Q4 25 | $-7.5M | $-7.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-5.8M | $-4.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-4.3M | $-5.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-3.9M | $-4.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-999.0K | $-11.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.3M | $146.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.4M | $-4.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-2.1M | $-3.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | -196.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -129.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -112.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -62.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -236.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -65.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -22.9% |
| Q4 25 | -85.6% | -188.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | -63.9% | -120.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | -47.3% | -104.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -47.2% | -60.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | -10.9% | -247.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | -13.4% | 1.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -14.6% | -57.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | -23.8% | -16.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.95 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-1.65 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-4.15 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-3.85 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-10.15 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.12 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-4.34 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-3.53 |
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 | $2.9M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $198.3M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $141.3M | $1.3M |
| Total Assets | $382.5M | $135.4M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.40× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $8.3M | $2.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.1M | $10.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.6M | $683.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.6M | $1.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.7M | $2.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.7M | $1.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.7M | $1.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.1M | $2.1M |
| 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 | $1.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $151.7M | $4.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $160.6M | $-19.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $164.5M | $-15.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $170.0M | $-12.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $134.8M | $-3.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $107.4M | $-4.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $107.9M | $-745.0K |
| Q4 25 | $382.5M | $135.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $397.8M | $82.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $405.6M | $59.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $409.5M | $103.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $415.1M | $105.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $418.2M | $158.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $417.1M | $195.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $420.1M | $201.5M |
| 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 | $848.0K | $-12.1M |
| 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 | $848.0K | $-12.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2M | $-4.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.8M | $-1.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.5M | $-1.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-784.0K | $555.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | $0 | $-74.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | $346.0K | $1.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.4M | $-1.5M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -0.51× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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% |
CWD
Segment breakdown not available.
