vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of BingEx Ltd (FLX) and FOSTER L B CO (FSTR). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
FOSTER L B CO is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($160.4M vs $143.2M, roughly 1.1× BingEx Ltd). BingEx Ltd runs the higher net margin — 2.2% vs 1.5%, a 0.7% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Foster L B Co. is a U.S.-headquartered industrial manufacturing firm that develops, produces and distributes engineered access solutions, construction components, and rail infrastructure products. It serves commercial construction, transportation, and industrial end markets across North America and selected international regions.
FLX vs FSTR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $143.2M | $160.4M |
| Net Profit | $3.2M | $2.4M |
| Gross Margin | 10.8% | 19.7% |
| Operating Margin | — | 4.9% |
| Net Margin | 2.2% | 1.5% |
| Revenue YoY | — | 25.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | 1098.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $0.22 |
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 | $143.2M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $160.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $141.2M | $138.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $143.0M | $143.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $141.0M | $97.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $128.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $164.6M | $137.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $140.8M |
| Q1 26 | $3.2M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $2.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.1M | $4.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.5M | $2.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $27.6M | $-2.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-242.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.4M | $35.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.8M |
| Q1 26 | 10.8% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 19.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.1% | 22.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.0% | 21.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.0% | 20.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 22.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.3% | 23.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 21.7% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 4.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.4% | 6.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.9% | 5.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -2.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.0% | 5.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 3.2% |
| Q1 26 | 2.2% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 1.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.4% | 3.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.2% | 2.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.6% | -2.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -0.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.1% | 26.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 2.0% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $0.22 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.40 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.27 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-0.20 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-0.04 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $3.27 | ||
| 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 | $561.1M | $4.3M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $42.6M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | — | $175.3M |
| Total Assets | $1.3B | $330.4M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.24× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $561.1M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $4.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $628.6M | $3.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $499.4M | $4.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $592.4M | $2.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $517.4M | $3.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $4.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $42.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $58.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $81.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $82.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $46.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $68.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $87.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $175.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $174.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $174.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $170.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $178.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $181.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $147.1M |
| Q1 26 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $330.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $333.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $349.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $342.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $334.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $926.8M | $344.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $333.3M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.24× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.33× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.47× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.48× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.26× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.38× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.59× |
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 | — | $22.2M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $19.8M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 12.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 1.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 9.18× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $25.2M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $22.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $29.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $10.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-26.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $24.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $24.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-5.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $19.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $26.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $7.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-28.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $22.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $21.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-7.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 12.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 19.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 5.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -29.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 17.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 15.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -5.0% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 1.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 9.18× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 6.70× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 3.61× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.69× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -1.74× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
FLX
Segment breakdown not available.
FSTR
| Rail Technologies And Services Segment | $98.0M | 61% |
| Over Time Output Method | $26.3M | 16% |
| Services | $19.4M | 12% |
| Rail Technologies Products | $10.0M | 6% |
| Over Time Input Method | $8.3M | 5% |
