vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of BLACK HILLS CORP /SD/ (BKH) and NUSCALE POWER Corp (SMR), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
BLACK HILLS CORP /SD/ is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($622.7M vs $1.8M, roughly 344.4× NUSCALE POWER Corp). BLACK HILLS CORP /SD/ runs the higher net margin — 16.8% vs -2811.3%, a 2828.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, BLACK HILLS CORP /SD/ posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (6.4% vs -94.7%). Over the past eight quarters, NUSCALE POWER Corp's revenue compounded faster (14.5% CAGR vs -6.8%).
Black Hills Corporation is an American diversified energy company that is an electric and gas utility in South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa. The company sells power throughout the American West. The company is based in Rapid City, South Dakota. It derives its name from its home in the Black Hills of South Dakota.
NuScale Power Corporation is a publicly traded American company that designs and markets small modular reactors (SMRs). It is headquartered in Tigard, Oregon. The company's VOYGR power plant, which uses 50 MWe modules and scales to 12 modules, was the first SMR to be certified by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (2022). The newer 77 MWe module designs, known as the VOYGR-4 and VOYGR-6, were submitted for NRC review on January 1, 2023, and approved May 29, 2025. NuScale is now seekin...
BKH vs SMR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $622.7M | $1.8M |
| Net Profit | $104.9M | $-50.8M |
| Gross Margin | — | -3.4% |
| Operating Margin | 27.5% | -4022.2% |
| Net Margin | 16.8% | -2811.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 6.4% | -94.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | 7.0% | 32.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.39 | $-0.08 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $622.7M | $1.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $427.4M | $8.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $435.7M | $8.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $800.4M | $13.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $585.1M | $34.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $398.6M | $475.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | $397.1M | $967.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $717.2M | $1.4M |
| Q4 25 | $104.9M | $-50.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $24.9M | $-273.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $27.5M | $-17.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $134.3M | $-14.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $98.0M | $-75.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $24.4M | $-17.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $22.8M | $-27.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $127.9M | $-16.6M |
| Q4 25 | — | -3.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 32.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 22.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 52.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 91.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 37.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 12.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 46.7% |
| Q4 25 | 27.5% | -4022.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 18.4% | -6532.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 18.9% | -534.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 25.6% | -264.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 27.9% | -34.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.0% | -8635.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 17.8% | -4330.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 27.0% | -3188.8% |
| Q4 25 | 16.8% | -2811.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.8% | -3316.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.3% | -219.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.8% | -104.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 16.7% | -219.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.1% | -3675.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.7% | -2855.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 17.8% | -1201.7% |
| Q4 25 | $1.39 | $-0.08 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.34 | $-1.85 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.38 | $-0.13 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.87 | $-0.11 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.36 | $-0.77 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.35 | $-0.18 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.33 | $-0.31 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.87 | $-0.21 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $182.8M | $1.3B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.8B | $1.2B |
| Total Assets | $10.9B | $1.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $182.8M | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $21.1M | $691.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $8.1M | $420.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.6M | $521.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $16.1M | $441.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.5M | $156.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $624.8M | $130.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $123.0M | $132.0M |
| Q4 25 | $3.8B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.8B | $828.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.6B | $692.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.6B | $704.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.5B | $618.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.4B | $160.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.4B | $136.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.3B | $125.1M |
| Q4 25 | $10.9B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.3B | $883.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.1B | $606.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.1B | $618.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.0B | $544.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.7B | $253.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.2B | $229.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.7B | $229.8M |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $168.1M | $-203.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-101.5M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -16.3% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 43.3% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.60× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-146.4M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $168.1M | $-203.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $88.9M | $-199.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $188.6M | $-33.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $227.8M | $-22.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $153.2M | $-26.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $102.1M | $-12.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $230.6M | $-36.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $233.4M | $-33.5M |
| Q4 25 | $-101.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-89.5M | $-199.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-30.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $74.9M | $-22.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-60.5M | $-26.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-86.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $64.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $57.2M | — |
| Q4 25 | -16.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -20.9% | -2425.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | -7.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.4% | -170.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | -10.3% | -77.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | -21.6% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 16.2% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 8.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | 43.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 41.7% | 0.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 50.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.1% | 0.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 36.5% | 0.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 47.2% | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 41.9% | 0.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 24.6% | 0.0% |
| Q4 25 | 1.60× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.57× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.86× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.70× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.56× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.18× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.11× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.82× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
BKH
| Gas Utilities | $391.1M | 63% |
| Retail Electric Natural Gasand Coal | $189.7M | 30% |
| Other | $15.3M | 2% |
| Market Off System Sales | $13.6M | 2% |
| Transferred At Point In Time | $8.9M | 1% |
| Wholesale | $4.9M | 1% |
| Inter Segment Revenues | $2.4M | 0% |
SMR
Segment breakdown not available.
