vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Connect Biopharma Holdings Ltd (CNTB) and Namib Minerals (NAMM). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Namib Minerals is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($41.9M vs $24.1M, roughly 1.7× Connect Biopharma Holdings Ltd).
Connect Biopharma Holdings Ltd is a clinical-stage global biopharmaceutical company dedicated to developing innovative targeted therapies for inflammatory, immunological and autoimmune diseases. Its core pipeline includes candidate treatments for asthma, atopic dermatitis and other conditions with high unmet medical needs, with main operations across the U.S., China and key global markets to deliver effective therapeutic solutions to patients.
Namib Minerals is a Namibia-based natural resources firm focused on exploration, development and extraction of high-demand mineral deposits including uranium, copper and lithium. It operates across licensed southern African sites, supplying raw materials to global clean energy, construction and electronics manufacturing sectors.
CNTB vs NAMM — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2024 vs Q2 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $24.1M | $41.9M |
| Net Profit | $14.8M | — |
| Gross Margin | — | 45.7% |
| Operating Margin | 56.6% | 29.8% |
| Net Margin | 61.6% | — |
| Revenue YoY | — | — |
| Net Profit YoY | 148.7% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.27 | — |
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 | — | $41.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $24.1M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $0 | — |
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $14.8M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-30.5M | — |
| Q2 25 | — | 45.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — |
| Q2 25 | — | 29.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 56.6% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — |
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 61.6% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — |
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.27 | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-0.55 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $110.2M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $110.9M | — |
| Total Assets | $120.6M | — |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $110.2M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $81.6M | — |
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $110.9M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $128.7M | — |
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $120.6M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $144.1M | — |
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 | $-8.0M | $11.4M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $7.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 17.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 9.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | -0.54× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q2 25 | — | $11.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-8.0M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-31.2M | — |
| Q2 25 | — | $7.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — |
| Q2 25 | — | 17.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — |
| Q2 25 | — | 9.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — |
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -0.54× | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
