vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Figure Technology Solutions, Inc. (FIGR) and USA Compression Partners, LP (USAC). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
USA Compression Partners, LP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($252.5M vs $156.4M, roughly 1.6× Figure Technology Solutions, Inc.). Figure Technology Solutions, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 57.3% vs 11.0%, a 46.3% 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.
USA Compression Partners, LP is a US-based provider of natural gas compression services and related infrastructure solutions. It serves clients across the upstream, midstream, and downstream segments of the oil and gas industry, offering custom compression systems, maintenance, and operational support to facilitate efficient natural gas production, processing, and transportation.
FIGR vs USAC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $156.4M | $252.5M |
| Net Profit | $89.6M | $27.8M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 33.7% | 30.3% |
| Net Margin | 57.3% | 11.0% |
| Revenue YoY | — | 2.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | 9.1% |
| 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 | — | $252.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $156.4M | $250.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $250.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $245.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $245.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $240.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $235.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $229.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | $27.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $89.6M | $34.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $28.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $20.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $25.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $19.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $31.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $23.6M |
| Q4 25 | — | 30.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 33.7% | 33.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 30.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 28.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 30.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 31.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 32.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 29.2% |
| Q4 25 | — | 11.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 57.3% | 13.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 11.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 8.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 10.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 8.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 13.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 10.3% |
| 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 | $8.6M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $466.8M | $2.5B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.2B | — |
| Total Assets | $2.2B | $2.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.40× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $8.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.0K | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $14.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $79.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $9.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $8.0K |
| Q4 25 | — | $2.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $466.8M | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.5B |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.2B | $2.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.8B |
| 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 | $139.5M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $87.7M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 34.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 20.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 0.55× | 5.02× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $277.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $139.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $49.3M | $75.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $124.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $54.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $130.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $48.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $96.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $65.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | $87.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $51.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $101.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $36.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $101.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $19.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $48.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-32.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | 34.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 20.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 40.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 14.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 41.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 8.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 20.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -14.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | 20.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 9.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 9.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 7.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 11.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 12.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 20.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 43.0% |
| Q4 25 | — | 5.02× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.55× | 2.20× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 4.35× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.66× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 5.12× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.51× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 3.10× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 2.80× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
FIGR
Segment breakdown not available.
USAC
| Revenue From Contract Operations Excluding Revenue From Related Party | $231.7M | 92% |
| Entities Affiliated With Energy Transfer LP | $16.6M | 7% |
| Transferred At Point In Time | $5.4M | 2% |
