vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of DORCHESTER MINERALS, L.P. (DMLP) and INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES INC (IIPR). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($66.7M vs $41.9M, roughly 1.6× DORCHESTER MINERALS, L.P.). INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES INC runs the higher net margin — 47.8% vs 38.7%, a 9.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, DORCHESTER MINERALS, L.P. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (5.4% vs -13.1%). Over the past eight quarters, DORCHESTER MINERALS, L.P.'s revenue compounded faster (16.2% CAGR vs -6.0%).
Dorchester Minerals, L.P. is a publicly traded master limited partnership based in the United States. It acquires, owns, and manages a diversified portfolio of royalty interests, net profit interests, and mineral properties associated with oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids production across key onshore U.S. energy basins, delivering stable cash flow returns to its unitholders.
Oxford Properties is a Canadian multinational corporation, with operations in real estate investment, development and property management. Its portfolio includes office, retail, industrial, multi-residential, life sciences and hotel assets. Established privately in 1960 and later wholly owned by the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) since 2003, the company is headquartered in Toronto with regional head offices in New York City, London, Australia, Singapore and Luxembourg. ...
DMLP vs IIPR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $41.9M | $66.7M |
| Net Profit | $16.2M | $31.8M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | — | 47.8% |
| Net Margin | 38.7% | 47.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 5.4% | -13.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | 13.7% | -20.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $1.07 |
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 | $41.9M | $66.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $35.4M | $64.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $32.4M | $62.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $43.2M | $71.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $39.7M | $76.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $53.5M | $76.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $37.4M | $79.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $31.0M | $75.5M |
| Q4 25 | $16.2M | $31.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.2M | $29.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $12.3M | $26.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.6M | $31.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $14.2M | $40.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $36.4M | $40.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $23.6M | $42.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $18.2M | $39.4M |
| Q4 25 | — | 47.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 45.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 45.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 47.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 54.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 54.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 53.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 55.7% |
| Q4 25 | 38.7% | 47.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 31.5% | 45.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 38.1% | 41.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 40.9% | 43.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 35.9% | 52.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 68.1% | 52.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 63.2% | 52.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 58.6% | 52.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.07 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.97 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.86 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.03 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.35 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.37 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.44 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.36 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $41.9M | $47.6M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $393.7M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | — | $1.8B |
| Total Assets | $309.6M | $2.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.21× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $41.9M | $47.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $41.6M | $41.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $36.5M | $104.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $41.5M | $133.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $42.5M | $151.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $56.5M | $172.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $35.2M | $160.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $37.7M | $173.5M |
| Q4 25 | — | $393.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.0B |
| Q4 25 | $309.6M | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $330.4M | $2.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $325.6M | $2.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $349.0M | $2.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $366.8M | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $403.4M | $2.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $176.0M | $2.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $184.8M | $2.4B |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.21× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| 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 | $34.3M | $198.2M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 2.12× | 6.22× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $34.3M | $198.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $34.3M | $45.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $30.5M | $48.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $33.4M | $54.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $31.5M | $258.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $43.7M | $64.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $29.4M | $64.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $28.0M | $71.6M |
| Q4 25 | 2.12× | 6.22× | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.07× | 1.56× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.47× | 1.86× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.89× | 1.75× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.21× | 6.46× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.20× | 1.61× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.25× | 1.53× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.54× | 1.82× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
DMLP
| Royalties | $34.0M | 81% |
| Other | $7.8M | 19% |
IIPR
Segment breakdown not available.
