vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. (EOSE) and Metropolitan Bank Holding Corp. (MCB). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Metropolitan Bank Holding Corp. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($88.5M vs $58.0M, roughly 1.5× Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc.). Metropolitan Bank Holding Corp. runs the higher net margin — 35.5% vs -207.7%, a 243.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (699.6% vs 25.4%).
Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. is an energy storage solutions provider that designs, produces and deploys safe long-duration zinc-based battery systems. It serves utility, commercial, industrial and microgrid customers across North America, Europe and Asia, supporting grid stability and renewable energy integration.
Sandy Spring Bancorp, Inc. was a bank holding company headquartered in Olney, Maryland and operating in the Washington metropolitan area. In addition to banking services, the company offered commercial and personal lines of insurance, surety bonds, workers compensation insurance, and professional liability insurance protection as well as financial planning, wealth management, and asset management for high-net-worth individuals, businesses, and associations. In April 2025, the company was acqu...
EOSE vs MCB — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $58.0M | $88.5M |
| Net Profit | $-120.5M | $31.4M |
| Gross Margin | -93.8% | — |
| Operating Margin | -140.1% | — |
| Net Margin | -207.7% | 35.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 699.6% | 25.4% |
| Net Profit YoY | 55.1% | 92.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.53 | $2.92 |
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.
| Q1 26 | — | $88.5M | ||
| Q4 25 | $58.0M | $88.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $30.5M | $79.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $15.2M | $76.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.5M | $70.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.3M | $71.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $71.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $67.7M |
| Q1 26 | — | $31.4M | ||
| Q4 25 | $-120.5M | $28.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-641.4M | $7.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-222.9M | $18.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $15.1M | $16.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-268.1M | $21.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $12.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $16.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -93.8% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -111.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -203.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -234.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -324.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -140.1% | 46.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | -200.6% | 12.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | -419.1% | 35.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | -506.2% | 33.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | -712.8% | 44.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 24.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 35.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | 35.5% | ||
| Q4 25 | -207.7% | 32.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | -2102.1% | 8.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | -1463.2% | 24.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 144.7% | 23.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | -3696.7% | 30.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 17.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 24.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | $2.92 | ||
| Q4 25 | $-0.53 | $2.74 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-4.91 | $0.67 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.05 | $1.76 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.20 | $1.45 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-2.30 | $1.89 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.08 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.50 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $568.0M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $813.3M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $-2.2B | $948.3M |
| Total Assets | $885.2M | $8.8B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $568.0M | $393.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $58.7M | $385.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $120.2M | $152.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $82.6M | $196.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $74.3M | $200.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $318.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $244.7M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $813.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $448.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $445.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $325.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $316.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $948.3M | ||
| Q4 25 | $-2.2B | $743.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.3B | $732.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.1B | $723.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-942.2M | $737.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-1.1B | $729.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $715.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $692.4M |
| Q1 26 | — | $8.8B | ||
| Q4 25 | $885.2M | $8.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $328.2M | $8.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $361.0M | $7.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $263.3M | $7.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $260.3M | $7.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $7.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $7.3B |
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 | $-50.3M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-75.2M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -129.7% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 43.1% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-265.0M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-50.3M | $88.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-65.9M | $31.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-66.1M | $18.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-28.9M | $7.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-42.7M | $148.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $4.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $35.3M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-75.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-82.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-73.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-33.8M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-55.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -129.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -271.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -480.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -323.6% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -769.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 43.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 55.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 46.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 47.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 180.6% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 3.07× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 4.47× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.98× | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.91× | 0.47× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 6.93× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.39× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 2.10× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
