vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Freightos Ltd (CRGOW) and Freight Technologies, Inc. (FRGT), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Freight Technologies, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($3.0M vs $14.2K, roughly 210.0× Freightos Ltd).
Freightos is a software company that operates a booking and payments platform for international freight, using a SaaS-Enabled Marketplace model. The platform, which connects airlines, ocean liners, trucking carriers, freight forwarders, and importers or exporters, facilitates transactions at a run-rate of 1.4 million per year connecting 77 air and ocean carriers with thousands of freight forwarders and importers/exporters.
A freight forwarder or forwarding agent is a person or a company who co-ordinates and organizes the movement of shipments on behalf of a shipper by liaising with carriers. The carriers may use a variety of shipping modes, including ships, airplanes, trucks, and railroads, and often use multiple modes for a single shipment. A freight forwarder does not move the goods but acts as an agent in the logistics network and will carry out freight consolidation, rate negotiations, shipment tracking, cu...
CRGOW vs FRGT — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2023 vs Q2 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $14.2K | $3.0M |
| Net Profit | — | $649.2K |
| Gross Margin | 58.7% | — |
| Operating Margin | -108.0% | -49.2% |
| Net Margin | — | 21.7% |
| Revenue YoY | — | — |
| Net Profit YoY | — | — |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $0.02 |
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.
| Q2 25 | — | $3.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $4.1M | ||
| Q3 23 | $14.2K | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $9.5K | — | ||
| Q1 23 | $4.4K | — |
| Q2 25 | — | $649.2K | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-1.6M | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-55.0M | — | ||
| Q1 23 | — | — |
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 23 | 58.7% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — | ||
| Q1 23 | 61.7% | — |
| Q2 25 | — | -49.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -35.7% | ||
| Q3 23 | -108.0% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | -668894.0% | — | ||
| Q1 23 | -95.3% | — |
| Q2 25 | — | 21.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -39.1% | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | -576015.9% | — | ||
| Q1 23 | — | — |
| Q2 25 | — | $0.02 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-0.73 | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-1.33 | — | ||
| Q1 23 | — | — |
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 | — | $586.7K |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | — | $8.8M |
| Total Assets | — | $17.1M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q2 25 | — | $586.7K | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $416.5K | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $9.3M | — | ||
| Q1 23 | $6.5K | — |
| Q2 25 | — | $8.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $6.2M | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $77.8M | — | ||
| Q1 23 | $21.7K | — |
| Q2 25 | — | $17.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $13.4M | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $97.2M | — | ||
| Q1 23 | $41.8K | — |
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 | $-9.7K | $-1.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-9.9K | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -69.9% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 1.5% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | -2.99× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q2 25 | — | $-1.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-3.1M | ||
| Q3 23 | $-9.7K | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-18.8M | — | ||
| Q1 23 | $-3.4K | — |
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $-9.9K | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-18.8M | — | ||
| Q1 23 | $-3.5K | — |
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 23 | -69.9% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | -196995.9% | — | ||
| Q1 23 | -79.0% | — |
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 23 | 1.5% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 1.8% | — | ||
| Q1 23 | 1.8% | — |
| Q2 25 | — | -2.99× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — | ||
| Q1 23 | — | — |
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.
