vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Cellectis S.A. (CLLS) and Sunlands Technology Group (STG). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Sunlands Technology Group is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($10.1M vs $9.5M, roughly 1.1× Cellectis S.A.). Sunlands Technology Group runs the higher net margin — 24.0% vs -265.9%, a 289.9% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Cellectis is a French biopharmaceutical company. It develops genome-edited chimeric antigen receptor T-cell technologies for cancer immunotherapy. It has offices in Paris, New York City, and Raleigh, North Carolina.
STG Partners, LLC (STG) is an American private equity firm and based in Menlo Park, California. Its predecessor, Symphony Technology Group ("Symphony") was founded in 2002 by Romesh Wadhwani, William Chisholm, and Bryan Taylor. In 2017, Symphony was reorganized as STG Partners. As of March 2025, STG Partners managed approximately $12 billion in 19 pooled investment vehicle for its clients. The firm itself has less than one billion dollars in assets.
CLLS vs STG — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2024 vs Q3 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $9.5M | $10.1M |
| Net Profit | $-25.3M | $2.4M |
| Gross Margin | — | 88.5% |
| Operating Margin | -181.1% | 26.5% |
| Net Margin | -265.9% | 24.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 375.0% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | -51.9% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.28 | — |
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.
| Q3 25 | — | $10.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $9.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $9.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.5M | $10.0M | ||
| Q3 23 | $1.6M | $9.9M | ||
| Q2 23 | $2.0M | $10.0M | ||
| Q2 22 | $2.7M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $2.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-25.3M | $2.2M | ||
| Q3 23 | $-17.5M | $2.5M | ||
| Q2 23 | $-16.6M | $3.3M | ||
| Q2 22 | $-19.5M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | 88.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 85.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 83.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 85.2% | ||
| Q3 23 | — | 87.8% | ||
| Q2 23 | 97.3% | 88.7% | ||
| Q2 22 | 87.9% | — |
| Q3 25 | — | 26.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 15.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 13.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -181.1% | — | ||
| Q3 23 | -1258.1% | 23.3% | ||
| Q2 23 | -1180.5% | 29.6% | ||
| Q2 22 | -1003.0% | — |
| Q3 25 | — | 24.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 15.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 18.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | -265.9% | 21.5% | ||
| Q3 23 | -1064.1% | 25.1% | ||
| Q2 23 | -831.6% | 33.0% | ||
| Q2 22 | -714.4% | — |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.28 | $0.31 | ||
| Q3 23 | $-0.31 | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-0.20 | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $-0.42 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $149.0M | $15.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $148.6M | $17.7M |
| Total Assets | $407.1M | $41.2M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | — | $15.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $15.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $149.0M | $18.7M | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $16.5M | ||
| Q2 23 | $84.4M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $129.4M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.8M | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $2.2M | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $17.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $12.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $10.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $148.6M | $7.6M | ||
| Q3 23 | $76.1M | $2.5M | ||
| Q2 23 | $96.6M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $180.5M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $41.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $40.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $42.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $407.1M | $41.3M | ||
| Q3 23 | $209.7M | $40.0M | ||
| Q2 23 | $227.7M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $320.9M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.14× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.24× | ||
| Q3 23 | — | 0.86× | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
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 | $28.9M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $27.6M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 290.5% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 13.2% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $28.9M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-47.4M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $-60.2M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $27.6M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-47.9M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $-61.7M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 290.5% | — | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | -2391.4% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | -2266.7% | — |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 13.2% | — | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 24.1% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | 56.6% | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
