vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. (CETY) and Venture Global, Inc. (VG). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Venture Global, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($4.4B vs $773.6K, roughly 5746.2× Clean Energy Technologies, Inc.). Venture Global, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 26.8% vs -271.8%, a 298.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (228.9% vs 191.7%). Over the past eight quarters, Venture Global, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (77.3% CAGR vs -26.1%).
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...
S&P Global Inc. is an American publicly traded corporation headquartered in Manhattan, New York. Its primary areas of business are financial information, analytics, and energy and commodities intelligence. It is the parent company of S&P Global Ratings, S&P Global Energy, S&P Global Market Intelligence, S&P Global Mobility, and the Indian credit rating agency CRISIL. It is also the majority owner of the S&P Dow Jones Indices joint venture. "S&P" is a shortening of "Standard and Poor's".
CETY vs VG — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $773.6K | $4.4B |
| Net Profit | $-2.1M | $1.2B |
| Gross Margin | 23.7% | — |
| Operating Margin | -172.6% | 38.7% |
| Net Margin | -271.8% | 26.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 228.9% | 191.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | -61.8% | 20.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.47 | $0.41 |
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 | — | $4.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $773.6K | $3.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $236.3K | $3.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $791.9K | $2.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $480.3K | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $235.2K | $926.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $196.1K | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.5M | $1.4B |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.1M | $550.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.1M | $475.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-331.2K | $517.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-865.6K | $990.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.3M | $-294.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-831.9K | $352.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.4M | $698.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 23.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 94.7% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 92.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 42.7% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 90.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 89.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 16.7% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 38.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | -172.6% | 39.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -311.0% | 33.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -12.1% | 37.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | -116.3% | 39.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | -322.9% | 20.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -496.6% | 32.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | -54.3% | 43.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | 26.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | -271.8% | 16.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -460.8% | 15.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | -41.8% | 17.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | -180.2% | 65.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | -552.5% | -31.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | -424.2% | 31.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | -93.8% | 49.4% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.41 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.47 | $0.16 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.02 | $0.14 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.01 | $0.15 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.40 | $0.35 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.44 | $-0.15 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.02 | $0.12 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.04 | $0.25 |
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 | $2.4B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $34.2B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $7.1M | $6.7B |
| Total Assets | $14.8M | $53.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 5.07× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $234.9K | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $233.4K | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $62.1K | $3.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $34.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $32.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $30.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $29.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $29.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $6.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.1M | $5.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.8M | $5.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.0M | $4.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.9M | $2.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.6M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.4M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $53.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $14.8M | $50.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $14.8M | $46.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.1M | $45.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.5M | $43.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.3M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 5.07× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 5.73× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 5.69× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 6.01× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 10.11× | ||
| 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 | $-4.7M | $2.1B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $-1.5B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | -34.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 81.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 1.77× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $-6.8B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $-4.7M | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $-780.9K | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $-776.0K | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $-772.3K | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-740.4K | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-871.6K | $638.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | $-1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-2.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-2.4B |
| Q4 25 | — | -34.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -42.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -49.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -81.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -167.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | 81.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 98.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 96.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 119.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 212.4% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.77× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 3.42× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 3.07× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.15× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.91× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
CETY
Segment breakdown not available.
VG
| Plaquemines Project Segment | $3.4B | 76% |
| Calcasieu Project Segment | $841.0M | 19% |
| Other | $208.0M | 5% |
