vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Figure Technology Solutions, Inc. (FIGR) and Twin Hospitality Group Inc. (TWNP). 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 $82.3M, roughly 1.9× Twin Hospitality Group Inc.). Figure Technology Solutions, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 57.3% vs -29.7%, a 87.0% 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.
Target Hospitality is a company that provides workforce lodging and other temporary, modular housing used for oil, gas and mining operations; large-scale events; and disaster relief. Target Hospitality is based in The Woodlands, Texas, and also has offices in Williston, North Dakota; Denver, Colorado; Calgary, Alberta.
FIGR vs TWNP — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $156.4M | $82.3M |
| Net Profit | $89.6M | $-24.5M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 33.7% | -16.2% |
| Net Margin | 57.3% | -29.7% |
| Revenue YoY | — | — |
| Net Profit YoY | — | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.34 | $-0.43 |
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 | $82.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $87.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $87.1M |
| Q3 25 | $89.6M | $-24.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-20.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-12.1M |
| Q3 25 | 33.7% | -16.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -13.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -1.2% |
| Q3 25 | 57.3% | -29.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -23.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -13.9% |
| Q3 25 | $0.34 | $-0.43 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-0.38 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-0.26 |
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 | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $466.8M | $402.8M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.2B | $-92.1M |
| Total Assets | $2.2B | $516.8M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.40× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | $466.8M | $402.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $411.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $413.0M |
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $-92.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-78.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-101.9M |
| Q3 25 | $2.2B | $516.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $535.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $544.2M |
| Q3 25 | 0.40× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — |
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 | $-5.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $-7.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | -9.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 1.9% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 0.55× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | $49.3M | $-5.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-8.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-5.7M |
| Q3 25 | — | $-7.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-10.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-9.7M |
| Q3 25 | — | -9.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -12.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -11.2% |
| Q3 25 | — | 1.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 4.6% |
| Q3 25 | 0.55× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
