vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of DBV Technologies S.A. (DBVT) and MOVING iMAGE TECHNOLOGIES INC. (MITQ). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
MOVING iMAGE TECHNOLOGIES INC. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($3.8M vs $2.8M, roughly 1.4× DBV Technologies S.A.). MOVING iMAGE TECHNOLOGIES INC. runs the higher net margin — -10.2% vs -1195.5%, a 1185.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, DBV Technologies S.A. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (158.8% vs 10.2%). Over the past eight quarters, DBV Technologies S.A.'s revenue compounded faster (12.4% CAGR vs 7.8%).
DBV Technologies SA is a publicly owned French biopharmaceutical firm headquartered in Bagneux, France. DBV Technologies is known for developing "Viaskin" technology for administering allergens or antigens to intact skin while avoiding any transfer to the blood. Viaskin Peanut clinical development has received Fast Track designation from the US Food and Drug Administration.
Silicon Image Inc. was an American fabless semiconductor company based in Hillsboro, Oregon, and active from 1995 to 2015. The company designed circuits for mobile phones, consumer electronics and personal computers (PCs). It also manufactured wireless and wired connectivity products used for high-definition content. The company's semiconductor and IP products were deployed by manufacturers in devices such as smartphones, tablets, digital televisions (DTVs), and other consumer electronics, as...
DBVT vs MITQ — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q2 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $2.8M | $3.8M |
| Net Profit | $-33.2M | $-388.0K |
| Gross Margin | — | 30.7% |
| Operating Margin | -1235.7% | -10.8% |
| Net Margin | -1195.5% | -10.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 158.8% | 10.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | -8.9% | 26.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.24 | $-0.04 |
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 | — | $3.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.8M | $5.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $3.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $5.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.2M | $6.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.4M | $3.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | $-388.0K | ||
| Q3 25 | $-33.2M | $509.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | $-41.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-240.0K | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-527.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-25.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | $-33.1M | $-416.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $-27.3M | $-601.0K |
| Q4 25 | — | 30.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 30.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 29.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 27.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 26.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 22.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 17.4% |
| Q4 25 | — | -10.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | -1235.7% | 6.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | -2806.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -7.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -16.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -1.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -2914.9% | -7.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | -2029.7% | -16.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | -10.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | -1195.5% | 9.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | -2858.4% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -6.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -15.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -0.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | -2852.4% | -6.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | -1943.5% | -15.4% |
| Q4 25 | — | $-0.04 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.24 | $0.05 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.31 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-0.02 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-0.05 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.00 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.34 | $-0.04 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.28 | $-0.06 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $69.8M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $52.9M | $5.0M |
| Total Assets | $110.5M | $9.5M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $69.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $103.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $66.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $101.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $5.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $52.9M | $5.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $86.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $5.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $5.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $5.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $79.1M | $5.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $111.7M | $6.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | $9.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $110.5M | $11.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $143.4M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $11.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $10.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $10.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $114.2M | $10.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $145.9M | $12.7M |
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 | $-32.4M | $-1.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-32.6M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -1173.5% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 4.2% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-138.3M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $-1.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-32.4M | $-167.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | $-33.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $53.0K | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $70.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-32.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | $-35.1M | $-472.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $-34.7M | $1.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-32.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-33.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-35.8M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-36.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -1173.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -2316.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -3084.0% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -2560.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 63.0% | 0.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 94.9% | 0.0% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -0.33× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
