vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Cellectis S.A. (CLLS) and U-BX Technology Ltd. (UBXG). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
U-BX Technology Ltd. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($12.4M vs $9.5M, roughly 1.3× Cellectis S.A.). U-BX Technology Ltd. runs the higher net margin — -24.7% vs -265.9%, a 241.1% 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.
CLLS vs UBXG — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2024 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $9.5M | $12.4M |
| Net Profit | $-25.3M | $-3.1M |
| Gross Margin | — | 0.4% |
| Operating Margin | -181.1% | -22.1% |
| Net Margin | -265.9% | -24.7% |
| Revenue YoY | 375.0% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | -51.9% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.28 | $-0.55 |
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.
| Q2 25 | — | $12.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.5M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $1.6M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $2.0M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $2.7M | — |
| Q2 25 | — | $-3.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-25.3M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $-17.5M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-16.6M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $-19.5M | — |
| Q2 25 | — | 0.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 97.3% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | 87.9% | — |
| Q2 25 | — | -22.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | -181.1% | — | ||
| Q3 23 | -1258.1% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | -1180.5% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | -1003.0% | — |
| Q2 25 | — | -24.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | -265.9% | — | ||
| Q3 23 | -1064.1% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | -831.6% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | -714.4% | — |
| Q2 25 | — | $-0.55 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.28 | — | ||
| 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 | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $148.6M | $19.0M |
| Total Assets | $407.1M | $21.0M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $149.0M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $84.4M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $129.4M | — |
| Q2 25 | — | $19.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $148.6M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $76.1M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $96.6M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $180.5M | — |
| Q2 25 | — | $21.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $407.1M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $209.7M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $227.7M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $320.9M | — |
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 | $-1.2M |
| 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.
| Q2 25 | — | $-1.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $28.9M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-47.4M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $-60.2M | — |
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $27.6M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-47.9M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $-61.7M | — |
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 290.5% | — | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | -2391.4% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | -2266.7% | — |
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| 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.
