vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. (ESRT) and Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc. (RARE). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($207.3M vs $190.3M, roughly 1.1× Empire State Realty Trust, Inc.). Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 1.6% vs -62.0%, a 63.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (25.9% vs 5.7%). Over the past eight quarters, Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (38.0% CAGR vs 0.2%).
Empire State Realty Trust is a leading real estate investment trust that owns, manages, and operates a portfolio of premium commercial, residential, and retail properties primarily in the New York City metropolitan area, including the iconic Empire State Building. It serves corporate tenants, retail partners, and residential occupants, focusing on sustainable property operations and long-term asset value growth.
Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc. is an American biopharmaceutical company involved in the research and development of novel products for treatment of rare and ultra-rare genetic diseases for which there are typically no approved treatments and high unmet medical need. The company works with multiple drug modalities including biologics, small molecule, gene therapies, and ASO and mRNAs in the disease categories of bone, endocrine, metabolic, muscle and CNS diseases.
ESRT vs RARE — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $190.3M | $207.3M |
| Net Profit | $3.0M | $-128.6M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 15.5% | -54.7% |
| Net Margin | 1.6% | -62.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 5.7% | 25.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | -73.7% | 3.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.20 | $-1.28 |
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 | $190.3M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $199.2M | $207.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $197.7M | $159.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $191.3M | $166.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $180.1M | $139.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $197.6M | $164.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $199.6M | $139.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $189.5M | $147.0M |
| Q1 26 | $3.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $32.2M | $-128.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $13.6M | $-180.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.4M | $-115.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $15.8M | $-151.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $18.8M | $-133.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $22.8M | $-133.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $28.6M | $-131.6M |
| Q1 26 | 15.5% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 17.8% | -54.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 19.9% | -106.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 18.4% | -64.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 14.3% | -102.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 21.7% | -74.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 22.7% | -94.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 20.8% | -79.1% |
| Q1 26 | 1.6% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 16.1% | -62.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.9% | -112.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.0% | -69.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.8% | -108.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.5% | -80.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.4% | -95.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 15.1% | -89.5% |
| Q1 26 | $0.20 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.11 | $-1.28 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.05 | $-1.81 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.04 | $-1.17 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.05 | $-1.57 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.07 | $-1.34 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.08 | $-1.40 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.10 | $-1.52 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $68.8M | $421.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.8B | $-80.0M |
| Total Assets | $4.4B | $1.5B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $68.8M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $132.7M | $421.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $154.1M | $202.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $94.6M | $176.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $187.8M | $127.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $385.5M | $174.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $421.9M | $150.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $535.5M | $480.7M |
| Q1 26 | $1.8B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.1B | $-80.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.0B | $9.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | $151.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | $144.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.0B | $255.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.0B | $346.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.0B | $432.4M |
| Q1 26 | $4.4B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $4.5B | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.1B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.1B | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.1B | $1.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.5B | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.4B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.4B | $1.6B |
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 | — | $-99.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $-100.8M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | -48.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 10.0% | 0.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $-472.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $249.1M | $-99.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $105.3M | $-91.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $26.7M | $-108.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $83.1M | $-166.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $260.9M | $-79.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $102.8M | $-67.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $37.1M | $-77.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $50.6M | $-100.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $72.8M | $-92.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-55.1M | $-110.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $41.1M | $-167.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $88.0M | $-79.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-65.1M | $-68.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $19.5M | $-79.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 25.4% | -48.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 36.8% | -58.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -28.8% | -66.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 22.8% | -120.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 44.5% | -48.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | -32.6% | -49.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.3% | -53.7% |
| Q1 26 | 10.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 99.6% | 0.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 16.5% | 0.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 42.8% | 1.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 23.4% | 1.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 87.5% | 0.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 84.1% | 1.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.3% | 1.4% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| 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× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
ESRT
| Rental revenue (1) | $166.1M | 87% |
| Observatory revenue | $18.5M | 10% |
| Other revenue and fees | $4.1M | 2% |
| Lease termination fees | $1.4M | 1% |
| Third-party management and other fees | $277.0K | 0% |
RARE
| Royalty | $105.6M | 51% |
| Products | $101.7M | 49% |
