vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. (DNA) and Namib Minerals (NAMM). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Namib Minerals is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($41.9M vs $33.4M, roughly 1.3× Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc.). Namib Minerals produced more free cash flow last quarter ($7.4M vs $-47.7M).
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...
Namib Minerals is a Namibia-based natural resources firm focused on exploration, development and extraction of high-demand mineral deposits including uranium, copper and lithium. It operates across licensed southern African sites, supplying raw materials to global clean energy, construction and electronics manufacturing sectors.
DNA vs NAMM — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q2 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $33.4M | $41.9M |
| Net Profit | — | — |
| Gross Margin | — | 45.7% |
| Operating Margin | -211.9% | 29.8% |
| Net Margin | — | — |
| Revenue YoY | -23.8% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | — | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $-1.41 | — |
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 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $38.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $49.6M | $41.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $48.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $43.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $89.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $56.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $37.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-80.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-60.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-91.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-56.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-217.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-165.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 45.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | -211.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -231.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -132.1% | 29.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -184.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -236.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -62.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -396.7% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -469.1% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -207.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -121.6% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -188.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -63.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -386.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -437.3% | — |
| Q4 25 | $-1.41 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.45 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.10 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.68 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-1.91 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.08 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-4.23 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-3.32 | — |
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 | — |
| Total Assets | $1.1B | — |
| 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 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $559.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $613.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $647.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $716.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $797.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $833.1M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $987.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.6B | — |
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 | $11.4M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-47.7M | $7.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -142.8% | 17.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.0% | 9.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $-47.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-31.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-40.3M | $11.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-51.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-42.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-103.5M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-84.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-89.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-47.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-40.3M | $7.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-59.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-56.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-118.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-111.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-96.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | -142.8% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -81.2% | 17.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | -122.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -128.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -133.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -198.2% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -252.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.1% | 9.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 15.8% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 31.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 16.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 48.1% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 17.7% | — |
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% |
NAMM
Segment breakdown not available.
