vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Figure Technology Solutions, Inc. (FIGR) and GCL Global Holdings Ltd (GCL). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Figure Technology Solutions, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($156.4M vs $98.7M, roughly 1.6× GCL Global Holdings Ltd). Figure Technology Solutions, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 57.3% vs -5.2%, a 62.5% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Figure Technology Solutions, Inc. is a financial technology company in Reno, Nevada, United States. Established in 2018, it develops and operates blockchain-based platforms used in lending, capital markets, and asset management.
GCL Global Holdings Ltd is a leading clean energy enterprise focusing on R&D, production and operation of photovoltaic products, energy storage systems and low-carbon energy solutions. Its main markets cover Asia, Europe, North America, serving utility, commercial and residential distributed energy users across the globe.
FIGR vs GCL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $156.4M | $98.7M |
| Net Profit | $89.6M | $-5.1M |
| Gross Margin | — | 11.0% |
| Operating Margin | 33.7% | -6.7% |
| Net Margin | 57.3% | -5.2% |
| Revenue YoY | — | — |
| Net Profit YoY | — | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.34 | $-0.04 |
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 25 | $156.4M | $98.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $142.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $36.1M |
| Q3 25 | $89.6M | $-5.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $5.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-1.9M |
| Q3 25 | — | 11.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 15.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 16.2% |
| Q3 25 | 33.7% | -6.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -5.6% |
| Q3 25 | 57.3% | -5.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 3.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -5.2% |
| Q3 25 | $0.34 | $-0.04 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.05 | ||
| Q3 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 | $1.1B | $16.6M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $466.8M | $52.0M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.2B | $33.1M |
| Total Assets | $2.2B | $159.9M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.40× | 1.57× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $16.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $18.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.7M |
| Q3 25 | $466.8M | $52.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $11.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $33.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $35.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $15.9M |
| Q3 25 | $2.2B | $159.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $101.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $49.6M |
| Q3 25 | 0.40× | 1.57× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.33× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — |
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 | $49.3M | $-4.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $-5.2M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | -5.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 0.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 0.55× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | $49.3M | $-4.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-10.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $6.1M |
| Q3 25 | — | $-5.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-10.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | — | -5.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -7.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | — | 0.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | 0.55× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -1.84× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
