vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Figure Technology Solutions, Inc. (FIGR) and Urban Edge Properties (UE). 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 $132.6M, roughly 1.2× Urban Edge Properties). Figure Technology Solutions, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 57.3% vs 17.1%, a 40.2% 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.
Urban Edge Properties is a publicly traded real estate investment trust (REIT) that owns, operates, and develops high-quality retail and mixed-use properties, primarily located in densely populated urban and suburban markets across the United States. Its portfolio covers grocery-anchored shopping centers, lifestyle outlets, and community-focused commercial assets.
FIGR vs UE — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $156.4M | $132.6M |
| Net Profit | $89.6M | $22.6M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 33.7% | — |
| Net Margin | 57.3% | 17.1% |
| Revenue YoY | — | 12.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | -6.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.34 | $0.18 |
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 | — | $132.6M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $119.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $156.4M | $120.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $114.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $118.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $116.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $112.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $106.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | $22.6M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $12.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $89.6M | $14.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $58.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $8.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $30.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $9.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $30.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 11.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 33.7% | 13.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 53.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 7.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 27.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 8.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 30.6% |
| Q1 26 | — | 17.1% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 10.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 57.3% | 12.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 50.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 6.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 25.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 8.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 28.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | $0.18 | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $0.09 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.34 | $0.12 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.46 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.07 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.25 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.07 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $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 | $50.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $466.8M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.2B | $1.4B |
| Total Assets | $2.2B | $3.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.40× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $50.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $48.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $77.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $53.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $48.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $41.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $67.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $78.6M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $466.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.3B |
| Q1 26 | — | $3.4B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $3.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.2B | $3.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $3.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $3.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $3.2B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.40× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 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 | $39.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 1.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 0.55× | 1.73× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $39.1M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $182.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $49.3M | $55.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $43.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $32.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $153.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $36.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $41.2M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $81.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $26.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $19.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $11.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $42.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $12.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $19.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 68.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 21.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 17.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 10.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 36.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 10.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 18.6% |
| Q1 26 | — | 1.5% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 84.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 24.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 20.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 17.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 95.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 21.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 20.1% |
| Q1 26 | — | 1.73× | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 14.71× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.55× | 3.73× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.75× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 3.97× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 5.09× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 4.03× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.34× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
FIGR
Segment breakdown not available.
UE
| Rental revenue | $124.2M | 94% |
| Other | $8.4M | 6% |
