vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of DOMO, INC. (DOMO) and Global Interactive Technologies, Inc. (GITS), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
DOMO, INC. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($79.4M vs $1.8K, roughly 43200.8× Global Interactive Technologies, Inc.). DOMO, INC. runs the higher net margin — -13.1% vs -29541.7%, a 29528.6% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Domo, Inc. is an American cloud software company based in American Fork, Utah, United States. It specializes in artificial intelligence, business intelligence, and data visualization and is designed to provide real-time access to business data for decision makers across the company with minimal IT involvement. It is a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) venture.
Zeta Global Holdings Corp. is an American marketing technology company which was founded in 2007. Zeta offers companies a suite of multichannel marketing tools focused on creating, maintaining, and monetizing customer relationships. The company went public on the New York Stock Exchange on June 10, 2021, at a US$1.7 billion valuation.
DOMO vs GITS — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2026 vs Q3 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $79.4M | $1.8K |
| Net Profit | $-10.4M | $-543.0K |
| Gross Margin | 74.2% | 100.0% |
| Operating Margin | -8.7% | -29447.3% |
| Net Margin | -13.1% | -29541.7% |
| Revenue YoY | -0.5% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | 44.6% | -10.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.25 | $-0.17 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $79.4M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $79.7M | $1.8K | ||
| Q2 25 | $80.1M | $29 | ||
| Q1 25 | $78.8M | $0 | ||
| Q4 24 | $79.8M | $0 | ||
| Q3 24 | $78.4M | $0 | ||
| Q2 24 | $80.1M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $80.2M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-10.4M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-22.9M | $-543.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | $-18.1M | $-678.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $-17.7M | $-566.7K | ||
| Q4 24 | $-18.8M | $-4.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-19.5M | $-491.7K | ||
| Q2 24 | $-26.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-18.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | 74.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 74.8% | 100.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 74.2% | 100.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 74.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 75.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 74.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 74.1% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 76.3% | — |
| Q4 25 | -8.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -9.1% | -29447.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | -17.9% | -2334244.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -15.6% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -13.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -18.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -26.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -16.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | -13.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -28.8% | -29541.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -22.5% | -2338100.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | -22.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -23.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -24.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -32.5% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -23.3% | — |
| Q4 25 | $-0.25 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.56 | $-0.17 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.45 | $-0.22 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.45 | $-0.20 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.48 | $-1.54 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.51 | $-0.19 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.69 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.51 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | — | $36.9K |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $124.2M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $-191.9M | $5.2M |
| Total Assets | $201.6M | $5.9M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $36.9K | ||
| Q2 25 | $47.2M | $10.9K | ||
| Q1 25 | $45.3M | $253 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.4K | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $7.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | $61.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $60.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | $124.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $121.9M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $119.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $117.7M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $115.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $115.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $114.1M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $113.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-191.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-191.5M | $5.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-178.7M | $5.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-177.2M | $5.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-171.2M | $5.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-166.4M | $10.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-163.5M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-153.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | $201.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $195.7M | $5.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $189.7M | $6.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $214.3M | $6.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $190.2M | $6.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $197.8M | $19.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $204.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $225.7M | — |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $3.4M | $-166.2K |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $1.1M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 1.4% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.9% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $9.9M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $3.4M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.4M | $-166.2K | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.0M | $-433.3K | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.9M | $-96.3K | ||
| Q4 24 | $-13.7M | $23.9K | ||
| Q3 24 | $-6.2M | $-223.4K | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.9M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.4M | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.7M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-16.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-8.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-625.0K | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -20.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -10.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -0.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | 2.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.7% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.8% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.2% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.1% | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
DOMO
| Subscription | $71.9M | 91% |
| Professional Servicesand Other | $7.5M | 9% |
GITS
Segment breakdown not available.
