vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of General Enterprise Ventures, Inc. (CITR) and DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC (DGII), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($122.5M vs $288.2K, roughly 424.9× General Enterprise Ventures, Inc.). DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC runs the higher net margin — -2751.2% vs 9.6%, a 2760.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, General Enterprise Ventures, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (169.3% vs 17.9%). DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC produced more free cash flow last quarter ($35.2M vs $-1.5M). Over the past eight quarters, General Enterprise Ventures, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (28.4% CAGR vs 6.6%).
The Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (HPE) is an American multinational information technology company based in Spring, Texas. It is a business-focused organization which works in servers, storage, networking, containerization software and consulting and support. HPE was ranked No. 107 in the 2018 Fortune 500 list of the largest United States corporations by total revenue.
Digi International, Inc. is an American Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) technology company based in Hopkins, Minnesota. Founded in 1985, they were best known in the early 1990s as a manufacturer of multi-line serial data serial cards for PC clones, allowing these machines to run multi-line bulletin board systems (BBSes). As this market began to wind down with the rise of the internet in the late 1990s, Digi began to concentrate on network attached devices and industrial monitoring.
CITR vs DGII — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2025 vs Q1 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $288.2K | $122.5M |
| Net Profit | $-7.9M | $11.7M |
| Gross Margin | -99.7% | 62.4% |
| Operating Margin | -1470.3% | 13.3% |
| Net Margin | -2751.2% | 9.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 169.3% | 17.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | -1110.1% | 16.1% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.59 | $0.31 |
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 | — | $122.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $288.2K | $114.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $687.6K | $107.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $969.4K | $104.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $103.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $107.0K | $105.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $198.7K | $105.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $433.0K | $107.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | $11.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-7.9M | $10.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-11.9M | $10.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-10.9M | $10.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $10.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-655.2K | $11.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-907.4K | $9.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-3.5M | $4.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 62.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | -99.7% | 63.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 46.0% | 63.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 42.5% | 62.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 62.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | -30.0% | 61.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 48.6% | 59.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 79.2% | 57.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | 13.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | -1470.3% | 12.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -438.8% | 13.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -356.8% | 13.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 12.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | -524.4% | 14.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | -456.7% | 12.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | -608.9% | 7.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | 9.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | -2751.2% | 8.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -1731.1% | 9.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1124.8% | 10.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 9.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | -612.1% | 11.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -456.7% | 9.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | -812.8% | 3.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.31 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.59 | $0.26 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.19 | $0.27 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.23 | $0.28 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.27 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.11 | $0.32 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.02 | $0.26 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.04 | $0.11 |
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 | — | $30.9M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $135.0M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $8.5M | $649.2M |
| Total Assets | $12.3M | $918.4M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.21× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $30.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $21.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $20.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $26.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $25.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $27.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $28.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $23.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | $135.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $159.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $40.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $70.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $95.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $123.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $151.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $171.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | $649.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.5M | $636.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.2M | $621.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.1M | $605.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $590.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.8M | $581.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.2M | $563.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.8M | $549.6M |
| Q4 25 | — | $918.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.3M | $922.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $8.7M | $770.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.1M | $781.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $796.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.9M | $815.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.4M | $820.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.3M | $825.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.21× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.25× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.06× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.12× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.16× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.21× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.27× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.31× |
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 | $-1.5M | $35.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-1.5M | $35.2M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -525.6% | 28.7% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 18.7% | 0.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 3.04× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $111.4M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $35.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.5M | $28.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.2M | $24.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-713.9K | $26.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $29.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-551.3K | $26.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-424.9K | $24.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-343.7K | $13.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | $35.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.5M | $27.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.4M | $22.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-740.9K | $25.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $29.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $25.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $24.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $12.5M |
| Q4 25 | — | 28.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | -525.6% | 24.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | -196.7% | 21.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | -76.4% | 24.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 28.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 24.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 23.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 11.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 18.7% | 0.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 20.5% | 0.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.8% | 0.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.0% | 0.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.0% | 0.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.0% | 0.5% |
| Q4 25 | — | 3.04× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.81× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.34× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.50× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2.95× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.23× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 2.57× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 3.27× |
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
CITR
Segment breakdown not available.
DGII
| Io T Productsand Services | $86.4M | 71% |
| Io T Solutions | $36.1M | 29% |
