vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CLEANSPARK, INC. (CLSK) and ProPetro Holding Corp. (PUMP). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
ProPetro Holding Corp. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($289.7M vs $181.2M, roughly 1.6× CLEANSPARK, INC.). On growth, CLEANSPARK, INC. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (11.6% vs -9.6%). ProPetro Holding Corp. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($16.8M vs $-198.1M). Over the past eight quarters, CLEANSPARK, INC.'s revenue compounded faster (106.4% CAGR vs -15.5%).
CleanSpark, Inc. is a U.S.-headquartered sustainable technology company operating two core business segments: low-carbon Bitcoin mining powered primarily by renewable and stranded energy resources, and end-to-end microgrid design, deployment, and operation services for commercial, industrial, and public sector clients across North America.
ProPetro Holding Corp. is a leading U.S.-based oilfield services provider. It offers hydraulic fracturing, well completion and related supporting services primarily to onshore oil and gas exploration and production operators, with core operations concentrated in the Permian Basin spanning Texas and New Mexico.
CLSK vs PUMP — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $181.2M | $289.7M |
| Net Profit | $-378.7M | — |
| Gross Margin | 47.2% | — |
| Operating Margin | -174.7% | 2.1% |
| Net Margin | -209.0% | — |
| Revenue YoY | 11.6% | -9.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | -253.5% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $0.01 |
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 | $181.2M | $289.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $293.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $326.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $359.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $320.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $89.3M | $360.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $104.1M | $357.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $111.8M | $405.8M |
| Q4 25 | $-378.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-2.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-7.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $9.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-62.2M | $-137.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-236.2M | $-3.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $126.7M | $19.9M |
| Q4 25 | 47.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 36.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 56.6% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 69.3% | — |
| Q4 25 | -174.7% | 2.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -2.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -1.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -5.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | -73.5% | -49.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -239.2% | -0.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 7.5% |
| Q4 25 | -209.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -0.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -2.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -69.6% | -38.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | -226.9% | -1.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 113.4% | 4.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.01 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-0.02 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-0.07 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.09 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-0.14 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-1.32 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-0.03 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $0.18 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $458.1M | $91.3M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $1.8B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.4B | $829.8M |
| Total Assets | $3.3B | $1.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.29× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $458.1M | $91.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $76.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $83.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $71.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $58.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $121.2M | $54.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $126.1M | $74.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $53.6M |
| Q4 25 | $1.8B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.3M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.4B | $829.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $826.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $824.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $826.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $816.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.8B | $833.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.4B | $975.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.5B | $998.2M |
| Q4 25 | $3.3B | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.0B | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.5B | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.5B | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | 1.29× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.00× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.00× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.00× | — |
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 | $-161.1M | $81.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-198.1M | $16.8M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -109.3% | 5.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 20.4% | 22.2% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-626.9M | $45.3M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $-161.1M | $81.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $41.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $54.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $54.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $37.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-233.7M | $34.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-58.4M | $104.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-44.8M | $74.8M |
| Q4 25 | $-198.1M | $16.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-2.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $17.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $13.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $10.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-299.8M | $-6.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-68.7M | $67.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-60.3M | $40.2M |
| Q4 25 | -109.3% | 5.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -0.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 5.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 3.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 3.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | -335.8% | -1.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | -66.0% | 19.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | -54.0% | 9.9% |
| Q4 25 | 20.4% | 22.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 15.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 11.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 11.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 8.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 74.0% | 11.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.9% | 10.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 13.8% | 8.5% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 5.70× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -0.35× | 3.75× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
CLSK
Segment breakdown not available.
PUMP
| Hydraulic Fracturing Segment | $203.9M | 70% |
| Wireline Operating Segment | $55.4M | 19% |
| Cementing Operating Segment | $29.6M | 10% |
