vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. (DNA) and FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANCORP INC (FMAO). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($33.4M vs $32.5M, roughly 1.0× FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANCORP INC). On growth, FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANCORP INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (21.0% vs -23.8%). FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANCORP INC produced more free cash flow last quarter ($35.0M vs $-47.7M). Over the past eight quarters, FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANCORP INC's revenue compounded faster (16.1% CAGR vs -6.2%).
Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. is an American biotech company founded in 2008 by five scientists from MIT, headed by Jason Kelly. The company specializes in using genetic engineering to produce bacteria with industrial applications for other biotech companies, saving other companies the cost of reproducing the initial stages of design in synthetic biology. The self-proclaimed "Organism Company" was one of the world's largest privately held biotech companies, valued at $4.2 billion in 2019. It...
Rainier Bancorporation was the Seattle-based parent corporation of Rainier National Bank, a Washington state bank with branches throughout the state. Rainier traced its roots back to the National Bank of Commerce, which was founded by Richard Holyoke in 1889. The name Rainier National Bank was adopted in 1974. Rainier Bancorp expanded into Alaska with the purchase of Anchorage's People's Bank & Trust in 1983 and into Oregon with the purchase of Gresham's Mount Hood Security Bank in 1986, expa...
DNA vs FMAO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $33.4M | $32.5M |
| Net Profit | — | $9.8M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -211.9% | 39.5% |
| Net Margin | — | 30.2% |
| Revenue YoY | -23.8% | 21.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | 16.8% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-1.41 | $0.72 |
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 | $33.4M | $32.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $38.8M | $31.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $49.6M | $29.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $48.3M | $28.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $43.8M | $26.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $89.0M | $25.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $56.2M | $25.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $37.9M | $24.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | $9.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-80.8M | $8.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-60.3M | $7.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-91.0M | $7.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $8.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-56.4M | $6.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-217.2M | $5.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-165.9M | $5.4M |
| Q4 25 | -211.9% | 39.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | -231.8% | 35.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | -132.1% | 32.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | -184.1% | 31.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | -236.3% | 39.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -62.0% | 31.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | -396.7% | 28.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | -469.1% | 28.2% |
| Q4 25 | — | 30.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | -207.9% | 28.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | -121.6% | 26.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | -188.2% | 24.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 31.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -63.3% | 25.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | -386.4% | 22.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | -437.3% | 22.3% |
| Q4 25 | $-1.41 | $0.72 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.45 | $0.64 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.10 | $0.56 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.68 | $0.51 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-1.91 | $0.61 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.08 | $0.48 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-4.23 | $0.42 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-3.32 | $0.39 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $422.6M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $508.6M | $370.9M |
| Total Assets | $1.1B | $3.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $422.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $495.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $559.4M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $325.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $561.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $616.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $730.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $840.4M | — |
| Q4 25 | $508.6M | $370.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $559.8M | $361.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $613.0M | $350.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $647.4M | $344.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $716.1M | $335.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $797.9M | $335.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $833.1M | $322.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $987.3M | $317.7M |
| Q4 25 | $1.1B | $3.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $3.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4B | $3.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6B | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.6B | $3.3B |
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 | $-47.7M | $36.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-47.7M | $35.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -142.8% | 107.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.0% | 5.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 3.75× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $56.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $-47.7M | $36.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-31.6M | $11.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-40.3M | $1.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-51.5M | $11.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-42.4M | $32.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-103.5M | $18.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-84.4M | $9.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-89.3M | $1.5M |
| Q4 25 | $-47.7M | $35.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $10.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-40.3M | $385.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $-59.1M | $10.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-56.1M | $30.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-118.6M | $18.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-111.4M | $9.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-96.0M | $1.3M |
| Q4 25 | -142.8% | 107.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 34.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | -81.2% | 1.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | -122.4% | 37.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | -128.0% | 114.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | -133.2% | 71.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | -198.2% | 36.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | -252.9% | 5.3% |
| Q4 25 | 0.0% | 5.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.0% | 1.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.1% | 2.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 15.8% | 1.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 31.3% | 7.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 16.9% | 1.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 48.1% | 2.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 17.7% | 0.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | 3.75× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.26× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.14× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.58× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 3.87× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.86× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.71× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.28× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
DNA
| Cell Engineering Segment | $26.0M | 78% |
| Other | $7.4M | 22% |
FMAO
Segment breakdown not available.
