vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Coherus Oncology, Inc. (CHRS) and Laird Superfood, Inc. (LSF). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Laird Superfood, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($13.3M vs $12.7M, roughly 1.0× Coherus Oncology, Inc.). Laird Superfood, Inc. runs the higher net margin — -13.2% vs -295.3%, a 282.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Coherus Oncology, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (64.9% vs 15.0%). Over the past eight quarters, Laird Superfood, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (16.1% CAGR vs -47.0%).
Coherus Oncology, Inc. is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing, manufacturing and commercializing affordable oncology treatments, including FDA-approved biosimilars and novel targeted immuno-oncology therapies. Its core market is North America, serving patients with solid tumors and hematological malignancies to expand access to life-saving cancer care.
Laird Superfood, Inc. develops, manufactures and sells a portfolio of plant-based functional superfood products, including premium coffee creamers, hydration blends, nutritional supplements, and plant-powered snacks. It serves health-conscious consumers through direct-to-consumer e-commerce platforms and offline retail partners, mainly operating in the North American market with a focus on sustainably sourced clean ingredients.
CHRS vs LSF — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $12.7M | $13.3M |
| Net Profit | $-37.6M | $-1.8M |
| Gross Margin | 68.3% | 34.1% |
| Operating Margin | -359.9% | -13.5% |
| Net Margin | -295.3% | -13.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 64.9% | 15.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | 25.7% | -341.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.34 | — |
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 | $12.7M | $13.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.6M | $12.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.3M | $12.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $11.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $11.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $11.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.3M | $10.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $9.9M |
| Q4 25 | $-37.6M | $-1.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-35.5M | $-975.1K | ||
| Q2 25 | $297.8M | $-362.2K | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-156.2K | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-398.4K | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-166.1K | ||
| Q2 24 | $-12.9M | $-239.1K | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-1.0M |
| Q4 25 | 68.3% | 34.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 67.8% | 36.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 66.9% | 39.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 41.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 38.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 43.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 82.4% | 41.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 40.0% |
| Q4 25 | -359.9% | -13.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | -383.1% | -7.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -443.6% | -3.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -1.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -4.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -2.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -384.9% | -3.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -11.0% |
| Q4 25 | -295.3% | -13.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | -307.1% | -7.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2903.9% | -3.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -1.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -3.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -1.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -125.5% | -2.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -10.3% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.34 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.31 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.57 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.11 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $172.1M | $5.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $61.0M | $11.5M |
| Total Assets | $258.3M | $19.2M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $172.1M | $5.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $191.7M | $5.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $237.6M | $3.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $7.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $8.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $7.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $159.2M | $7.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $7.1M |
| Q4 25 | $61.0M | $11.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $87.8M | $12.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $119.8M | $13.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $13.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $13.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $13.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-84.1M | $12.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $12.7M |
| Q4 25 | $258.3M | $19.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $516.5M | $18.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $439.5M | $20.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $21.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $19.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $18.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $674.9M | $18.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $17.6M |
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 | $-19.7M | $68.4K |
| 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 | $-19.7M | $68.4K | ||
| Q3 25 | $-46.3M | $1.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-46.6M | $-2.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-1.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $339.2K | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $305.8K | ||
| Q2 24 | $59.7M | $642.7K | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-422.3K |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.16× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
CHRS
| Toripalimab | $12.4M | 97% |
| Other | $388.0K | 3% |
LSF
| Wholesale | $7.0M | 52% |
| Coffee Tea And Hot Chocolate Products | $4.4M | 33% |
| Hydration And Beverage Enhancing Supplements | $1.6M | 12% |
| Other | $352.6K | 3% |
