vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Empire State Realty OP, L.P. (ESBA) and Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. (HPP). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($256.0M vs $199.2M, roughly 1.3× Empire State Realty OP, L.P.). Empire State Realty OP, L.P. runs the higher net margin — 16.1% vs -109.4%, a 125.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (22.1% vs 0.8%). Over the past eight quarters, Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (9.4% CAGR vs 4.9%).
Empire State Realty OP, L.P. is a real estate operating partnership focused on owning, managing, and leasing premium commercial and retail properties primarily in the New York City metropolitan area. Its portfolio includes iconic landmarks like the Empire State Building, serving corporate tenants, retail brands and tourism-related business segments.
Hudson Pacific Properties is a real estate investment trust with 15.8 million square feet of office buildings, 1.5 million square feet of sound stages, and undeveloped rights for 3 million square feet of additional commercial property. Its properties are on the West Coast of the United States and Vancouver. It is organized in Maryland and headquartered in Los Angeles. It is the largest independent operator of sound stages in Los Angeles.
ESBA vs HPP — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $199.2M | $256.0M |
| Net Profit | $32.2M | $-280.2M |
| Gross Margin | — | 60.0% |
| Operating Margin | 17.8% | -109.8% |
| Net Margin | 16.1% | -109.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 0.8% | 22.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | 71.2% | -61.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.11 | $-11.57 |
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 | $199.2M | $256.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $197.7M | $186.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $191.3M | $190.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $180.1M | $198.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $197.6M | $209.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $199.6M | $200.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $189.5M | $218.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $181.2M | $214.0M |
| Q4 25 | $32.2M | $-280.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $13.6M | $-144.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.4M | $-87.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $15.8M | $-80.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $18.8M | $-173.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $22.8M | $-107.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $28.6M | $-47.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.2M | $-53.4M |
| Q4 25 | — | 60.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 44.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 43.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 42.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 44.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 42.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 48.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 48.6% |
| Q4 25 | 17.8% | -109.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 19.9% | -77.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 18.4% | -46.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 14.3% | -40.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 21.7% | -83.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 22.7% | -52.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 20.8% | -21.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 17.1% | -24.9% |
| Q4 25 | 16.1% | -109.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.9% | -77.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.0% | -46.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.8% | -40.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.5% | -82.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.4% | -53.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 15.1% | -21.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.6% | -24.9% |
| Q4 25 | $0.11 | $-11.57 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.05 | $-0.30 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.04 | $-0.41 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.05 | $-0.53 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.07 | $-1.19 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.08 | $-0.69 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.10 | $-0.33 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.03 | $-0.37 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $132.7M | $138.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | — | $3.0B |
| Total Assets | $4.5B | $7.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $132.7M | $138.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $154.1M | $190.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $94.6M | $236.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $187.8M | $86.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $385.5M | $63.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $421.9M | $90.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $535.5M | $78.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $333.6M | $114.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | $3.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $3.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $3.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $3.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $3.2B |
| Q4 25 | $4.5B | $7.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.1B | $7.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.1B | $8.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.1B | $8.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.5B | $8.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.4B | $8.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.4B | $8.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.2B | $8.3B |
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 | $249.1M | $121.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $50.6M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 25.4% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 99.6% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 7.74× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $109.3M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $249.1M | $121.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $105.3M | $33.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $26.7M | $-2.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $83.1M | $30.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $260.9M | $164.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $102.8M | $63.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $37.1M | $35.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $70.9M | $65.1M |
| Q4 25 | $50.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $72.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-55.1M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $41.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $88.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-65.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $19.5M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $23.2M | — |
| Q4 25 | 25.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 36.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -28.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 22.8% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 44.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -32.6% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.3% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 12.8% | — |
| Q4 25 | 99.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 16.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 42.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 23.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 87.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 84.1% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.3% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 26.3% | — |
| Q4 25 | 7.74× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.72× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.35× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.27× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 13.88× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.51× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.30× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.94× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
ESBA
| Real Estate Segment | $163.8M | 82% |
| Observatory Segment | $35.2M | 18% |
HPP
| Core Office | $217.1M | 85% |
| Studio Segment | $21.8M | 9% |
| Ancillary Revenue | $20.2M | 8% |
| Chargebacks | $3.3M | 1% |
