vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Sprinklr, Inc. (CXM) and Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. (ESRT). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Sprinklr, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($219.1M vs $190.3M, roughly 1.2× Empire State Realty Trust, Inc.). Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 1.6% vs 1.3%, a 0.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Sprinklr, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (9.2% vs 5.7%). Over the past eight quarters, Sprinklr, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (6.2% CAGR vs 0.2%).
Sprinklr is an American software company that develops a software as a service (SaaS) customer experience management (CXM) platform. The company's software, also called Sprinklr, combines different applications for social media marketing, social advertising, content management, collaboration, employee advocacy, customer care, social media research, and social media monitoring.
Empire State Realty Trust is a leading real estate investment trust that owns, manages, and operates a portfolio of premium commercial, residential, and retail properties primarily in the New York City metropolitan area, including the iconic Empire State Building. It serves corporate tenants, retail partners, and residential occupants, focusing on sustainable property operations and long-term asset value growth.
CXM vs ESRT — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2026 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $219.1M | $190.3M |
| Net Profit | $2.9M | $3.0M |
| Gross Margin | 66.4% | — |
| Operating Margin | 5.3% | 15.5% |
| Net Margin | 1.3% | 1.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 9.2% | 5.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | -72.2% | -73.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.01 | $0.20 |
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.
| Q1 26 | — | $190.3M | ||
| Q4 25 | $219.1M | $199.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $212.0M | $197.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $205.5M | $191.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $202.5M | $180.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $200.7M | $197.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $197.2M | $199.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $196.0M | $189.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | $3.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.9M | $32.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.6M | $13.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.6M | $11.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $98.7M | $15.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.5M | $18.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.8M | $22.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.6M | $28.6M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 66.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 68.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 69.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 71.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 71.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 72.6% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 73.9% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | 15.5% | ||
| Q4 25 | 5.3% | 17.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.7% | 19.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.9% | 18.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.2% | 14.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.9% | 21.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | -0.0% | 22.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.9% | 20.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | 1.6% | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.3% | 16.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.9% | 6.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.8% | 6.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 48.7% | 8.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.2% | 9.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.9% | 11.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.4% | 15.1% |
| Q1 26 | — | $0.20 | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.01 | $0.11 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.05 | $0.05 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.01 | $0.04 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.35 | $0.05 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.04 | $0.07 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.01 | $0.08 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.04 | $0.10 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $189.6M | $68.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $558.1M | $1.8B |
| Total Assets | $1.1B | $4.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $68.8M | ||
| Q4 25 | $189.6M | $132.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $125.4M | $154.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $126.4M | $94.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $145.3M | $187.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $93.2M | $385.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $119.1M | $421.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $126.8M | $535.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | $1.8B | ||
| Q4 25 | $558.1M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $543.4M | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $639.8M | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $612.1M | $1.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $497.0M | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $469.0M | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $610.9M | $1.0B |
| Q1 26 | — | $4.4B | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.1B | $4.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $4.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $4.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $4.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $970.3M | $4.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $983.8M | $4.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $4.4B |
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 | $20.0M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $19.8M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 9.0% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.1% | 10.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 6.87× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $142.3M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $20.0M | $249.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $34.8M | $105.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $83.8M | $26.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.4M | $83.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.2M | $260.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $21.3M | $102.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $41.7M | $37.1M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $19.8M | $50.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $34.4M | $72.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $83.5M | $-55.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.6M | $41.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.2M | $88.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $19.8M | $-65.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $39.2M | $19.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 9.0% | 25.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 16.2% | 36.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 40.6% | -28.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.3% | 22.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.1% | 44.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.1% | -32.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 20.0% | 10.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | 10.0% | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.1% | 99.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.2% | 16.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.1% | 42.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.4% | 23.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.5% | 87.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.8% | 84.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.3% | 9.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 6.87× | 7.74× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.76× | 7.72× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.35× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.05× | 5.27× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.88× | 13.88× | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.58× | 4.51× | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.92× | 1.30× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
CXM
| License And Service | $190.3M | 87% |
| Professional Services | $28.8M | 13% |
ESRT
| Rental revenue (1) | $166.1M | 87% |
| Observatory revenue | $18.5M | 10% |
| Other revenue and fees | $4.1M | 2% |
| Lease termination fees | $1.4M | 1% |
| Third-party management and other fees | $277.0K | 0% |
