vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Figure Technology Solutions, Inc. (FIGR) and Kimbell Royalty Partners, LP (KRP). 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 $82.5M, roughly 1.9× Kimbell Royalty Partners, LP). Figure Technology Solutions, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 57.3% vs 30.1%, a 27.2% 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.
Kimbell Royalty Partners, LP is a publicly traded US limited partnership focused on owning and acquiring mineral and royalty interests in oil and gas properties across key domestic producing basins including the Permian, Bakken, and Eagle Ford. Its core revenue comes from production-linked royalty payments from its diversified onshore hydrocarbon asset portfolio.
FIGR vs KRP — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $156.4M | $82.5M |
| Net Profit | $89.6M | $24.8M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 33.7% | 39.6% |
| Net Margin | 57.3% | 30.1% |
| Revenue YoY | — | 23.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | 163.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.34 | — |
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 | — | $82.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $156.4M | $80.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $86.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $84.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $66.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $83.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $76.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $82.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | $24.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $89.6M | $22.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $26.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $25.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-39.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $25.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $15.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $9.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | 39.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 33.7% | 35.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 43.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 39.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -58.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 40.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 31.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 21.4% |
| Q4 25 | — | 30.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 57.3% | 27.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 30.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 30.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -58.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 30.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 19.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 11.4% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.34 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 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 | $44.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $466.8M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.2B | — |
| Total Assets | $2.2B | $1.2B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.40× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $44.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $40.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $34.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $35.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $34.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $34.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $30.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $39.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $466.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.2B | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.3B |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.40× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 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 | $57.2M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 0.55× | 2.31× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $57.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $49.3M | $62.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $72.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $54.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $56.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $62.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $62.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $69.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 2.31× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.55× | 2.81× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.71× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.09× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.42× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 4.14× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 7.39× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
FIGR
Segment breakdown not available.
KRP
| Oil And Condensate | $45.9M | 56% |
| Natural Gas Midstream | $19.5M | 24% |
| NGL Revenue | $10.6M | 13% |
| Other | $6.4M | 8% |
