vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Curbline Properties Corp. (CURB) and Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. (DNA). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Curbline Properties Corp. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($54.1M vs $33.4M, roughly 1.6× Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc.).
Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. is an American biotech company founded in 2008 by five scientists from MIT, headed by Jason Kelly. The company specializes in using genetic engineering to produce bacteria with industrial applications for other biotech companies, saving other companies the cost of reproducing the initial stages of design in synthetic biology. The self-proclaimed "Organism Company" was one of the world's largest privately held biotech companies, valued at $4.2 billion in 2019. It...
CURB vs DNA — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $54.1M | $33.4M |
| Net Profit | $9.6M | — |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 17.8% | -211.9% |
| Net Margin | 17.6% | — |
| Revenue YoY | — | -23.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.08 | $-1.41 |
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 | $54.1M | $33.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $48.6M | $38.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $41.4M | $49.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $38.7M | $48.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $43.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $29.8M | $89.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $56.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $37.9M |
| Q4 25 | $9.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $9.4M | $-80.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.4M | $-60.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.6M | $-91.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-15.4M | $-56.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-217.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-165.9M |
| Q4 25 | 17.8% | -211.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 19.3% | -231.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 25.3% | -132.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 27.6% | -184.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -236.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | -51.8% | -62.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -396.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -469.1% |
| Q4 25 | 17.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 19.2% | -207.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 25.1% | -121.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 27.3% | -188.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -51.8% | -63.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -386.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -437.3% |
| Q4 25 | $0.08 | $-1.41 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.09 | $-1.45 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.10 | $-1.10 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.10 | $-1.68 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-1.91 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.15 | $-1.08 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-4.23 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-3.32 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $289.6M | $422.6M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $423.2M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.9B | $508.6M |
| Total Assets | $2.5B | $1.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.22× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $289.6M | $422.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $430.1M | $495.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $429.9M | $559.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $594.0M | $325.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $561.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.5M | $616.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $730.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $840.4M |
| Q4 25 | $423.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $396.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $99.1M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.9B | $508.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.9B | $559.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.9B | $613.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.9B | $647.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $716.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $797.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $833.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $987.3M |
| Q4 25 | $2.5B | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.4B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.1B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.1B | $1.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.6B |
| Q4 25 | 0.22× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.21× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.05× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.05× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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 | $124.6M | $-47.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $-47.7M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | -142.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 0.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 13.04× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $124.6M | $-47.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $39.2M | $-31.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $34.2M | $-40.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $25.4M | $-51.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-42.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-103.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-84.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-89.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | $-47.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-40.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-59.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-56.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-118.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-111.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-96.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | -142.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -81.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -122.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -128.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -133.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -198.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -252.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 15.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 31.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 16.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 48.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 17.7% |
| Q4 25 | 13.04× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.19× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.28× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.40× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
CURB
Segment breakdown not available.
DNA
| Cell Engineering Segment | $26.0M | 78% |
| Other | $7.4M | 22% |
