vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Figma, Inc. (FIG) and Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. (HPP). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Figma, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($274.2M vs $256.0M, roughly 1.1× Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc.). Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. runs the higher net margin — -109.4% vs -400.1%, a 290.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Figma, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (38.0% vs 22.1%).
Figma is a collaborative web application for interface design, with additional offline features enabled by desktop applications for macOS and Windows. The feature set of Figma focuses on user interface and user experience design, with an emphasis on real-time collaboration, utilizing a variety of vector graphics editor and prototyping tools. The Figma mobile app for Android and iOS allows viewing and interacting with Figma prototypes in real-time on mobile and tablet devices.
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.
FIG vs HPP — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $274.2M | $256.0M |
| Net Profit | $-1.1B | $-280.2M |
| Gross Margin | 69.4% | — |
| Operating Margin | -414.6% | 18.6% |
| Net Margin | -400.1% | -109.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 38.0% | 22.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | -6933.0% | -61.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-2.72 | — |
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.
| Q3 26 | — | $256.0M | ||
| Q1 26 | — | $181.9M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $256.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $274.2M | $186.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $249.6M | $190.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $198.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $209.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $198.6M | $200.4M |
| Q3 26 | — | $-280.2M | ||
| Q1 26 | — | $-50.9M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $-280.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.1B | $-144.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $28.2M | $-87.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-80.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-173.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-15.6M | $-107.0M |
| Q3 26 | — | — | ||
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 60.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 69.4% | 44.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 88.8% | 43.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 42.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 44.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 90.6% | 42.7% |
| Q3 26 | — | 18.6% | ||
| Q1 26 | — | -7.1% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | -109.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | -414.6% | -77.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.8% | -46.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -40.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -83.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -23.8% | -52.3% |
| Q3 26 | — | -109.4% | ||
| Q1 26 | — | -28.0% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | -109.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | -400.1% | -77.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.3% | -46.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -40.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -82.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | -7.9% | -53.4% |
| Q3 26 | — | — | ||
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $-11.57 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.72 | $-0.30 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.00 | $-0.41 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-0.53 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-1.19 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.07 | $-0.69 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $1.6B | $138.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.4B | $3.2B |
| Total Assets | $2.1B | $7.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 26 | — | $138.4M | ||
| Q1 26 | — | $138.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $138.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.6B | $190.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.6B | $236.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $86.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $63.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $416.1M | $90.7M |
| Q3 26 | — | $3.2B | ||
| Q1 26 | — | $3.1B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $3.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4B | $3.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | $3.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | $3.0B |
| Q3 26 | — | $7.3B | ||
| Q1 26 | — | $7.2B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $7.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.1B | $7.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.0B | $8.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $8.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $8.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $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 | $51.2M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $49.5M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 18.0% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.6% | 14.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 26 | — | — | ||
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $121.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $51.2M | $33.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-2.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $30.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $164.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $63.7M |
| Q3 26 | — | — | ||
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $49.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — |
| Q3 26 | — | — | ||
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 18.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — |
| Q3 26 | — | 14.0% | ||
| Q1 26 | — | 18.5% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
FIG
| Non Us | $147.4M | 54% |
| US | $126.8M | 46% |
HPP
| Rental revenues | $216.8M | 85% |
| Other | $35.6M | 14% |
| Service and other revenues | $3.7M | 1% |
