vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. (CETY) and SeaStar Medical Holding Corp (ICU). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($773.6K vs $420.0K, roughly 1.8× SeaStar Medical Holding Corp). Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. runs the higher net margin — -271.8% vs -691.4%, a 419.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, SeaStar Medical Holding Corp posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (526.9% vs 228.9%).
Bloom Energy is an American public company that designs and manufactures solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) which independently produce electricity onsite for power generation in data centers, manufacturing, and other commercial sectors. Founded in 2001 and headquartered in San Jose, California; its fuel cell technology generates electricity through a chemical conversion process, which differs from most other power sources reliant on combustion, and can use natural gas, biogas or hydrogen as fuel...
ICU Medical, Inc. is a medical technology company based in San Clemente, California. ICU Medical products are designed to prevent bloodstream infections and protect healthcare workers from exposure to infectious diseases or hazardous drugs. ICU Medical product line includes intravenous therapy (IV) products, pumps, needle-free vascular access devices, custom infusion sets, closed system hazardous drug handling devices and systems, sensor catheters, needle-free closed blood sampling systems, a...
CETY vs ICU — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $773.6K | $420.0K |
| Net Profit | $-2.1M | $-2.9M |
| Gross Margin | 23.7% | 97.1% |
| Operating Margin | -172.6% | -718.6% |
| Net Margin | -271.8% | -691.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 228.9% | 526.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | -61.8% | 34.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.47 | — |
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 | — | $420.0K | ||
| Q3 25 | $773.6K | $183.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $338.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $791.9K | $293.0K | ||
| Q4 24 | $480.3K | $67.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $68.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.5M | $0 |
| Q4 25 | — | $-2.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.1M | $-3.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-2.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-331.2K | $-3.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-865.6K | $-4.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-4.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-3.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.4M | $-12.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | 97.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 23.7% | 92.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 92.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 92.0% | 100.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 42.7% | 100.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 100.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 16.7% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | -718.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | -172.6% | -1955.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -519.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -12.1% | -1304.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | -116.3% | -7114.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -6552.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -54.3% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | -691.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | -271.8% | -1897.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -592.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | -41.8% | -1287.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | -180.2% | -6595.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -6585.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -93.8% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.47 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-0.18 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.01 | $-0.44 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.40 | $0.23 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-1.10 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-1.03 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.04 | $-4.73 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $234.9K | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $7.1M | $10.4M |
| Total Assets | $14.8M | $14.2M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $234.9K | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $62.1K | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | $10.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.1M | $11.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $3.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.0M | $565.0K | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.9M | $-2.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-2.1K | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-6.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.4M | $-4.5M |
| Q4 25 | — | $14.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $14.8M | $15.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $8.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.1M | $7.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.5M | $4.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $4.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $3.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.0M | $7.7M |
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 | $-4.7M | $-4.1M |
| 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 | — | $-4.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-4.7M | $-3.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-3.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-776.0K | $-2.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-772.3K | $-4.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-5.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-2.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-871.6K | $-3.5M |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
