vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CYTOKINETICS INC (CYTK) and Gloo Holdings, Inc. (GLOO). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Gloo Holdings, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($32.6M vs $17.8M, roughly 1.8× CYTOKINETICS INC). Gloo Holdings, Inc. runs the higher net margin — -116.9% vs -1030.9%, a 914.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. Gloo Holdings, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($-63.4M vs $-148.3M).
Cytokinetics, Incorporated, is a biopharmaceutical company based in South San Francisco, California, that develops muscle activators and muscle inhibitors as potential treatments for people with diseases characterized by impaired or declining muscle function.
CYTK vs GLOO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $17.8M | $32.6M |
| Net Profit | $-183.0M | $-38.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -1004.6% | -82.0% |
| Net Margin | -1030.9% | -116.9% |
| Revenue YoY | 4.9% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | -22.0% | 12.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-1.51 | $-6.08 |
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 | $17.8M | $32.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $66.8M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $16.9M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $89.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-183.0M | $-38.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-134.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-150.0M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $-19.8M | — |
| Q4 25 | -1004.6% | -82.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -167.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -821.4% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | -12.2% | — |
| Q4 25 | -1030.9% | -116.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | -201.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -886.3% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | -22.3% | — |
| Q4 25 | $-1.51 | $-6.08 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.12 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-1.26 | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $-0.23 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $122.5M | $15.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $176.5M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $-659.6M | $-444.4M |
| Total Assets | $1.4B | $206.7M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $122.5M | $15.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $74.9M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $94.9M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $93.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $176.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $609.7M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $619.5M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $-659.6M | $-444.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-368.7M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-135.4M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $111.4M | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.4B | $206.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $771.7M | — |
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 | $-142.7M | $-63.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-148.3M | $-63.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -835.2% | -194.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 31.8% | 1.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-438.9M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $-142.7M | $-63.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-128.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-65.6M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $-90.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-148.3M | $-63.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-132.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-66.9M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $-91.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | -835.2% | -194.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | -198.3% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -395.0% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | -102.7% | — |
| Q4 25 | 31.8% | 1.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.6% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | 1.0% | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
CYTK
| Other | $9.1M | 51% |
| Collaboration Revenues | $8.7M | 49% |
GLOO
| Platform Solutions | $12.7M | 39% |
| Advertising | $11.1M | 34% |
| Marketplace | $3.9M | 12% |
| Midwestern Acquisition | $2.7M | 8% |
| Servant Acquisition | $1.8M | 6% |
