vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Okeanis Eco Tankers Corp. (ECO) and HECLA MINING CO (HL). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
HECLA MINING CO is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($448.1M vs $393.2M, roughly 1.1× Okeanis Eco Tankers Corp.). Over the past eight quarters, HECLA MINING CO's revenue compounded faster (53.8% CAGR vs 20.5%).
Okeanis Eco Tankers Corp. is a global shipping enterprise specializing in the operation of eco-friendly tanker fleets. Its core business covers maritime transport of crude oil and refined petroleum products, serving major energy and commodity clients across key international trade routes, with a focus on cutting carbon emissions via energy-efficient vessel designs.
Hecla Mining is a leading U.S.-based precious and base metals mining firm. Core products include silver, gold, lead and zinc, with operating assets across North America. It supplies raw materials to global jewelry manufacturing, industrial production, and renewable energy segments, and is a top domestic primary silver producer.
ECO vs HL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $393.2M | $448.1M |
| Net Profit | — | $134.4M |
| Gross Margin | — | 55.4% |
| Operating Margin | 41.4% | 49.1% |
| Net Margin | — | 30.0% |
| Revenue YoY | — | 79.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | 1027.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $0.20 |
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 | $393.2M | $448.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $308.0M | $409.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-49.0M | $304.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $111.1M | $261.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $413.1M | $249.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $321.4M | $245.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $232.4M | $245.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $189.5M |
| Q4 25 | — | $134.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $100.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $57.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $28.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $11.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $27.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-5.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | 55.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 44.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 39.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 28.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 27.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 24.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 20.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 10.1% |
| Q4 25 | 41.4% | 49.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 44.2% | 36.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 101.1% | 30.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 49.6% | 20.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 48.7% | 15.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 52.0% | 9.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 56.7% | 16.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 2.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | 30.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 24.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 19.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 11.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 4.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 11.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -3.0% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.20 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.15 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.09 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.05 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.03 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.00 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0.04 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-0.01 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $116.6M | $301.2M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $573.1M | $2.6B |
| Total Assets | $1.2B | $3.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $116.6M | $301.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $133.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $59.8M | $296.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $23.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $49.3M | $26.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $22.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $92.8M | $24.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $80.2M |
| Q4 25 | $573.1M | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $428.3M | $2.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $410.4M | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $432.6M | $2.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.0B |
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | $3.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | $3.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $3.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $2.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $3.0B |
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 | $111.3M | $217.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $134.7M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 30.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 18.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 1.61× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $310.2M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $111.3M | $217.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $132.2M | $148.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $161.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $35.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $162.8M | $67.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $55.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $78.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $17.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | $134.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $90.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $103.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-18.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $6.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-690.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $28.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-30.5M |
| Q4 25 | — | 30.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 22.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 34.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -7.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -0.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 11.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -16.1% |
| Q4 25 | — | 18.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 14.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 19.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 20.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 24.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 22.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 20.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 25.1% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.61× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.47× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.80× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.24× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 5.66× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 31.24× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 2.82× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
ECO
Segment breakdown not available.
HL
| Silver Contracts | $258.5M | 58% |
| Gold | $129.2M | 29% |
| Zinc | $30.3M | 7% |
| Lead | $23.3M | 5% |
| Environmental Remediation Services | $9.2M | 2% |
