vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC (DGII) and Texas Pacific Land Corporation (TPL). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Texas Pacific Land Corporation is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($211.6M vs $122.5M, roughly 1.7× DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC). Texas Pacific Land Corporation runs the higher net margin — 58.3% vs 9.6%, a 48.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (17.9% vs 13.9%). Over the past eight quarters, Texas Pacific Land Corporation's revenue compounded faster (10.2% CAGR vs 6.6%).
Digi International, Inc. is an American Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) technology company based in Hopkins, Minnesota. Founded in 1985, they were best known in the early 1990s as a manufacturer of multi-line serial data serial cards for PC clones, allowing these machines to run multi-line bulletin board systems (BBSes). As this market began to wind down with the rise of the internet in the late 1990s, Digi began to concentrate on network attached devices and industrial monitoring.
The Texas Pacific Land Corporation is a publicly traded real estate operating company with its administrative office in Dallas, Texas. Owning over 880,000 acres (3,600 km2) in 20 West Texas counties, TPL is among the largest private landowners in the state of Texas. It was previously organized as a publicly traded trust taxed as a corporation, and operated under the name Texas Pacific Land Trust.
DGII vs TPL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $122.5M | $211.6M |
| Net Profit | $11.7M | $123.3M |
| Gross Margin | 62.4% | — |
| Operating Margin | 13.3% | 70.5% |
| Net Margin | 9.6% | 58.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 17.9% | 13.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | 16.1% | 4.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.31 | $-8.59 |
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 | $122.5M | $211.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $114.3M | $203.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $107.5M | $187.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $104.5M | $196.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $103.9M | $185.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $105.1M | $173.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $105.2M | $172.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $107.7M | $174.1M |
| Q4 25 | $11.7M | $123.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.0M | $121.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.2M | $116.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.5M | $120.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.1M | $118.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.9M | $106.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.7M | $114.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.0M | $114.4M |
| Q4 25 | 62.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 63.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 63.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 62.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 62.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 61.1% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 59.2% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 57.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | 13.3% | 70.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 12.5% | 73.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.9% | 76.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.1% | 76.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.9% | 76.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 14.2% | 73.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.3% | 77.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.6% | 78.1% |
| Q4 25 | 9.6% | 58.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.7% | 59.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.5% | 61.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.0% | 61.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.7% | 63.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.3% | 61.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.2% | 66.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.7% | 65.7% |
| Q4 25 | $0.31 | $-8.59 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.26 | $5.27 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.27 | $5.05 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.28 | $5.24 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.27 | $5.14 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.32 | $4.63 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.26 | $4.98 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.11 | $4.97 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $30.9M | $144.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $135.0M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $649.2M | $1.5B |
| Total Assets | $918.4M | $1.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.21× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $30.9M | $144.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $21.9M | $531.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $20.1M | $543.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $26.3M | $460.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $25.9M | $369.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $27.5M | $533.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $28.3M | $894.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $23.8M | $837.1M |
| Q4 25 | $135.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $159.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $40.1M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $70.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $95.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $123.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $151.6M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $171.8M | — |
| Q4 25 | $649.2M | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $636.1M | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $621.5M | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $605.2M | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $590.7M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $581.0M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $563.1M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $549.6M | $1.1B |
| Q4 25 | $918.4M | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $922.6M | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $770.3M | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $781.0M | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $796.1M | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $815.1M | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $820.4M | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $825.3M | $1.3B |
| Q4 25 | 0.21× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.25× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.06× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.12× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.16× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.21× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.27× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.31× | — |
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 | $35.6M | $113.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $35.2M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 28.7% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.4% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 3.04× | 0.92× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $111.4M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $35.6M | $113.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $28.0M | $154.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $24.0M | $120.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $26.3M | $156.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $29.7M | $126.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $26.4M | $118.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $24.9M | $98.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $13.1M | $147.2M |
| Q4 25 | $35.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $27.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $22.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $25.7M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $29.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $25.5M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $24.5M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $12.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | 28.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 24.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 21.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 24.6% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 28.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 24.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 23.2% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 11.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.6% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.5% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.5% | — |
| Q4 25 | 3.04× | 0.92× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.81× | 1.28× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.34× | 1.04× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.50× | 1.30× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.95× | 1.07× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.23× | 1.11× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.57× | 0.86× | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.27× | 1.29× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
DGII
| Io T Productsand Services | $86.4M | 71% |
| Io T Solutions | $36.1M | 29% |
TPL
| Water Serviceand Operations Segment | $98.2M | 46% |
| Water Sales And Royalties | $60.7M | 29% |
| Produced Water Royalties | $33.5M | 16% |
| Easementand Sundry | $20.6M | 10% |
