vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Bit Digital, Inc (BTBT) and Founder Group Ltd (FGL), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Bit Digital, Inc is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($32.3M vs $18, roughly 1796209.9× Founder Group Ltd). Bit Digital, Inc runs the higher net margin — -582.6% vs -9510122.2%, a 9509539.6% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Digital Equipment Corporation, using the trademark Digital, was a major American company in the computer industry from the 1960s to the 1990s. The company was co-founded by Ken Olsen and Harlan Anderson in 1957. Olsen was president until he was forced to resign in 1992, after the company had gone into precipitous decline.
Founder Group (方正集团) is a major Chinese technology conglomerate that deals with information technology, pharmaceuticals, real estate, finance, and commodities trading. It is divided into five major industry groups, each covering a separate industry: PKU Founder IT Group (IT), PKU Healthcare Group, PKU Resource Group, Founder Financial (finance), and Founder Commodities. The group has been coping with bankruptcy since 2020, when the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court announced the recogn...
BTBT vs FGL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q2 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $32.3M | $18 |
| Net Profit | $-188.4M | $-1.7M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -597.0% | -5234838.9% |
| Net Margin | -582.6% | -9510122.2% |
| Revenue YoY | — | — |
| Net Profit YoY | — | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.53 | — |
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 | $32.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $30.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $25.7M | $18 | ||
| Q1 25 | $25.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-188.4M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $150.9M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $14.9M | $-1.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-57.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | -597.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 45.7% | -5234838.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -208.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | -582.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 495.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 58.0% | -9510122.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | -229.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | $-0.53 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.47 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.07 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.32 | — |
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 | $118.4M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $724.0M | $4.1M |
| Total Assets | $1.2B | $29.0M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $118.4M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $179.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $181.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $57.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | $724.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $906.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $633.2M | $4.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $417.4M | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $723.4M | $29.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $485.2M | — |
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 | $-84.1M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-206.0M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -637.1% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 377.1% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-574.9M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $-84.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-240.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $17.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.4M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-206.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-256.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-64.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-47.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | -637.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -843.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -251.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -189.4% | — |
| Q4 25 | 377.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 55.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 320.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 258.8% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -1.59× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.19× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — |
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
BTBT
| Cloud Services | $19.3M | 60% |
| Digital Asset Mining | $5.5M | 17% |
| Colocation Services | $3.8M | 12% |
| Other | $3.7M | 11% |
FGL
Segment breakdown not available.
