vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Empire State Realty OP, L.P. (ESBA) and Nine Energy Service, Inc. (NINE). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Empire State Realty OP, L.P. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($199.2M vs $132.2M, roughly 1.5× Nine Energy Service, Inc.). Empire State Realty OP, L.P. runs the higher net margin — 16.1% vs -14.5%, a 30.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Empire State Realty OP, L.P. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (0.8% vs -6.5%). Empire State Realty OP, L.P. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($50.6M vs $-4.8M). Over the past eight quarters, Empire State Realty OP, L.P.'s revenue compounded faster (4.9% CAGR vs -3.6%).
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.
Xcel Energy Inc. is a U.S. regulated electric utility and natural gas delivery company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, serving approximately 3.9 million electricity customers and 2.2 million natural gas customers across parts of eight states as of mid-2025. It consists of four operating subsidiaries: Northern States Power-Minnesota, Northern States Power-Wisconsin, Public Service Company of Colorado, and Southwestern Public Service Co.
ESBA vs NINE — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $199.2M | $132.2M |
| Net Profit | $32.2M | $-19.2M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 17.8% | -4.2% |
| Net Margin | 16.1% | -14.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 0.8% | -6.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | 71.2% | -117.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.11 | $-0.47 |
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 | $132.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $197.7M | $132.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $191.3M | $147.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $180.1M | $150.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $197.6M | $141.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $199.6M | $138.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $189.5M | $132.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $181.2M | $142.1M |
| Q4 25 | $32.2M | $-19.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $13.6M | $-14.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.4M | $-10.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $15.8M | $-7.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $18.8M | $-8.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $22.8M | $-10.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $28.6M | $-14.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.2M | $-8.1M |
| Q4 25 | 17.8% | -4.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 19.9% | -0.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 18.4% | 2.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 14.3% | 3.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 21.7% | 2.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 22.7% | 1.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 20.8% | -1.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 17.1% | 3.1% |
| Q4 25 | 16.1% | -14.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.9% | -11.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.0% | -7.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.8% | -4.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.5% | -6.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.4% | -7.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 15.1% | -10.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.6% | -5.7% |
| Q4 25 | $0.11 | $-0.47 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.05 | $-0.35 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.04 | $-0.25 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.05 | $-0.18 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.07 | $-0.21 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.08 | $-0.26 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.10 | $-0.40 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.03 | $-0.24 |
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 | $18.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | — | $-115.0M |
| Total Assets | $4.5B | $339.5M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $132.7M | $18.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $154.1M | $14.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $94.6M | $14.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $187.8M | $17.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $385.5M | $27.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $421.9M | $15.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $535.5M | $26.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $333.6M | $10.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | $-115.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-95.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-81.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-72.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-66.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-57.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-49.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-43.3M |
| Q4 25 | $4.5B | $339.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.1B | $340.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.1B | $361.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.1B | $359.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.5B | $360.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.4B | $353.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.4B | $381.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.2B | $380.4M |
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 | $-2.2M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $50.6M | $-4.8M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 25.4% | -3.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 99.6% | 2.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 7.74× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $109.3M | $-23.3M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $249.1M | $-2.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $105.3M | $-9.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $26.7M | $10.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $83.1M | $-5.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $260.9M | $15.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $102.8M | $-5.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $37.1M | $12.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $70.9M | $-8.8M |
| Q4 25 | $50.6M | $-4.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $72.8M | $-13.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-55.1M | $4.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $41.1M | $-9.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $88.0M | $11.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-65.1M | $-9.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $19.5M | $10.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $23.2M | $-14.3M |
| Q4 25 | 25.4% | -3.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 36.8% | -10.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | -28.8% | 2.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 22.8% | -6.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 44.5% | 8.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | -32.6% | -6.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.3% | 7.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 12.8% | -10.1% |
| Q4 25 | 99.6% | 2.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 16.5% | 2.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 42.8% | 4.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 23.4% | 2.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 87.5% | 2.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 84.1% | 2.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.3% | 2.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 26.3% | 3.9% |
| 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% |
NINE
| Cement | $52.6M | 40% |
| Tool Revenue | $28.6M | 22% |
| Coiled Tubing | $25.8M | 20% |
| Wireline | $25.1M | 19% |
