vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CITY HOLDING CO (CHCO) and DoubleDown Interactive Co., Ltd. (DDI), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
DoubleDown Interactive Co., Ltd. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($83.0M vs $60.6M, roughly 1.4× CITY HOLDING CO). CITY HOLDING CO runs the higher net margin — 52.1% vs 30.2%, a 22.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, DoubleDown Interactive Co., Ltd. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (13.7% vs 9.0%). CITY HOLDING CO produced more free cash flow last quarter ($33.6M vs $31.6M).
Jam City, Inc. is an American video game developer and publisher based in Culver City, California. The company was founded in 2010 by Chris DeWolfe, Colin Digiaro, Aber Whitcomb, and Josh Yguado. Jam City has nine studios located in the United States, Canada, South America, and Europe. As of 2021, it employs 825 people. Netmarble is the largest shareholder in Jam City. As of 2021, Jam City's games have 31 million monthly active users and 1.3 billion total downloads.
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. is an American video game holding company based in New York City founded by Ryan Brant in September 1993.
CHCO vs DDI — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q3 2024
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $60.6M | $83.0M |
| Net Profit | $31.6M | $25.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | 70.1% |
| Operating Margin | 65.3% | 42.5% |
| Net Margin | 52.1% | 30.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 9.0% | 13.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | 10.2% | -7.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.17 | $10.11 |
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 | $60.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $61.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $58.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $55.8M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $55.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $55.6M | $83.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $54.6M | $88.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $54.4M | $88.1M |
| Q4 25 | $31.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $35.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $33.4M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $30.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $28.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $29.8M | $25.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $29.1M | $33.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $29.5M | $30.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 70.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 69.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 68.9% |
| Q4 25 | 65.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 71.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 69.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 66.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 62.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 66.7% | 42.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 66.4% | 41.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 67.3% | 35.2% |
| Q4 25 | 52.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 57.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 56.7% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 54.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 51.6% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 53.6% | 30.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 53.3% | 37.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 54.2% | 34.4% |
| Q4 25 | $2.17 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.41 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.29 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.06 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.94 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.02 | $10.11 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.96 | $13.39 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.97 | $12.23 |
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 | $191.9M | $372.7M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $150.0M | $37.9M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $809.7M | $815.5M |
| Total Assets | $6.7B | $879.8M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.19× | 0.05× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $191.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $225.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $172.1M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $384.7M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $225.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $293.9M | $372.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $218.0M | $339.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $318.7M | $309.5M |
| Q4 25 | $150.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $150.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $150.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $150.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $150.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $150.0M | $37.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $150.0M | $36.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $150.0M | $37.1M |
| Q4 25 | $809.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $798.9M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $764.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $756.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $730.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $741.3M | $815.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $686.7M | $786.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $682.2M | $755.2M |
| Q4 25 | $6.7B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.7B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.6B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.6B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.5B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.4B | $879.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.3B | $852.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.3B | $831.0M |
| Q4 25 | 0.19× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.19× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.20× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.20× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.21× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.20× | 0.05× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.22× | 0.05× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.22× | 0.05× |
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 | $34.3M | $31.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $33.6M | $31.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 55.5% | 38.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 1.2% | 0.3% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.09× | 1.27× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $128.4M | $129.5M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $34.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $37.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $28.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $31.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $33.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $37.6M | $31.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $28.3M | $34.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $32.2M | $34.9M |
| Q4 25 | $33.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $35.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $27.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $31.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $32.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $37.0M | $31.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $27.8M | $34.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $31.6M | $34.9M |
| Q4 25 | 55.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 58.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 47.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 56.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 59.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 66.5% | 38.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 50.9% | 39.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 58.0% | 39.6% |
| Q4 25 | 1.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.7% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.7% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.2% | 0.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.9% | 0.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| Q4 25 | 1.09× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.06× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.85× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.04× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.18× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.26× | 1.27× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.97× | 1.04× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.09× | 1.15× |
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.
