vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of BullFrog AI Holdings, Inc. (BFRG) and Smart Powerr Corp. (CREG). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Smart Powerr Corp. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($88.8K vs $83.4K, roughly 1.1× BullFrog AI Holdings, Inc.). Smart Powerr Corp. runs the higher net margin — -529.4% vs -1860.2%, a 1330.7% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Bullfrog Productions Limited was a British video game developer based in Guildford, England. Founded in 1987 by Peter Molyneux and Les Edgar, the company gained recognition in 1989 for their third release, Populous, and is also well known for titles such as Theme Park, Theme Hospital, Magic Carpet, Syndicate and Dungeon Keeper. Bullfrog's name was derived from an ornament in the offices of Edgar's and Molyneux's other enterprise, Taurus Impact Systems, Bullfrog's precursor where Molyneux and ...
Smart Powerr Corp. (formerly China Recycling Energy Corp) is a specialized smart energy and energy efficiency solutions provider. Its core offerings include waste energy recovery systems, energy efficiency optimization services, and intelligent energy management platform deployment, primarily serving industrial, commercial and public sector clients in the Chinese market.
BFRG vs CREG — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $83.4K | $88.8K |
| Net Profit | $-1.6M | $-470.4K |
| Gross Margin | 18.4% | 41.6% |
| Operating Margin | -1881.8% | -691.5% |
| Net Margin | -1860.2% | -529.4% |
| Revenue YoY | — | — |
| Net Profit YoY | 12.0% | 22.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.15 | $0.03 |
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 | — | $88.8K | ||
| Q3 25 | $83.4K | $90.8K | ||
| Q2 25 | $33.3K | $62.2K | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $20.6K |
| Q4 25 | — | $-470.4K | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.6M | $-300.4K | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.4M | $-1.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-884.5K |
| Q4 25 | — | 41.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 18.4% | 48.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 19.6% | 42.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 42.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | -691.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | -1881.8% | -235.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | -4419.1% | -1648.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -5635.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | -529.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | -1860.2% | -330.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -4356.2% | -2000.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -4288.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.03 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.15 | $-0.08 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.15 | $-0.05 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-0.09 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $2.0M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.9M | $143.1M |
| Total Assets | $2.7M | $157.6M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $143.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.9M | $118.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.2M | $116.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $114.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | $157.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.7M | $133.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.9M | $132.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $130.7M |
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 | $-1.1M | $2.5M |
| 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 | — | $2.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.1M | $-53.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.4M | $-131.3K | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $64.6M |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
