vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Better Home & Finance Holding Co (BETR) and Figure Technology Solutions, Inc. (FIGR). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Figure Technology Solutions, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($156.4M vs $1.2M, roughly 131.2× Better Home & Finance Holding Co). Figure Technology Solutions, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 57.3% vs -3349.0%, a 3406.3% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Bajaj Finance Limited (BFL) is an Indian deposit-taking non-banking financial company (NBFC-UL) headquartered in Pune. It has 110.64 million customers and holds assets under management worth ₹462,250 crore (US$55 billion), as of September 2025.
Figure Technology Solutions, Inc. is a financial technology company in Reno, Nevada, United States. Established in 2018, it develops and operates blockchain-based platforms used in lending, capital markets, and asset management.
BETR vs FIGR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q3 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.2M | $156.4M |
| Net Profit | $-39.9M | $89.6M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -3376.8% | 33.7% |
| Net Margin | -3349.0% | 57.3% |
| Revenue YoY | -71.1% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | 32.6% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $-2.52 | $0.34 |
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 | $1.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.8M | $156.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.9M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.8M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-39.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-39.1M | $89.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-36.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-50.6M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-59.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-54.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-41.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-51.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | -3376.8% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -1403.7% | 33.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -1096.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -1250.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -1428.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -1761.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -1428.7% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -1822.8% | — |
| Q4 25 | -3349.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -1408.9% | 57.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | -1099.1% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -1254.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -1437.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -1765.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -1435.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -1827.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | $-2.52 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.56 | $0.34 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.39 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-3.33 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-3.92 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-3.58 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-2.74 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-3.41 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $203.4M | $1.1B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $466.8M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $37.2M | $1.2B |
| Total Assets | $1.5B | $2.2B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.40× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $203.4M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $205.8M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $221.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $228.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $264.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $262.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $378.8M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $482.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $466.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $37.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $41.9M | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $76.6M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-102.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-58.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $388.0K | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $44.9M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $76.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4B | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $913.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $845.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $957.9M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $841.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.40× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| 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 | $-57.3M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-57.6M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -4833.4% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 28.9% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-167.8M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $-57.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-56.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-57.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-106.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-10.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-220.6M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-42.8M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-57.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-56.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-57.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-106.5M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-11.7M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-221.8M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-43.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | -4833.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 143.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -1719.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -1424.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -2584.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -382.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -7699.9% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -1536.4% | — |
| Q4 25 | 28.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 38.6% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 43.7% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 16.8% | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
