vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of BingEx Ltd (FLX) and MATTHEWS INTERNATIONAL CORP (MATW). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
MATTHEWS INTERNATIONAL CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($284.8M vs $143.2M, roughly 2.0× BingEx Ltd). MATTHEWS INTERNATIONAL CORP runs the higher net margin — 15.3% vs 2.2%, a 13.1% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Matthews Aurora Funeral Solutions is one of the largest manufacturers of caskets and funerary urns in the United States, selling over 38% of the country's caskets as of 2005. The Aurora, Indiana–based company is a subsidiary of Pittsburgh-based Matthews International. The company makes both wooden and metal caskets and urns for holding cremated remains. It also provides supplies and consulting services for funeral homes.
FLX vs MATW — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $143.2M | $284.8M |
| Net Profit | $3.2M | $43.6M |
| Gross Margin | 10.8% | 35.0% |
| Operating Margin | — | 34.2% |
| Net Margin | 2.2% | 15.3% |
| Revenue YoY | — | -29.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | 1356.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $1.39 |
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 | — | $284.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $141.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $143.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $141.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $164.6M | — |
| Q1 26 | $3.2M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $43.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $27.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.4M | — |
| Q1 26 | 10.8% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 35.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.3% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 34.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.0% | — |
| Q1 26 | 2.2% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 15.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.6% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.1% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $1.39 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 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 | $561.1M | $31.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $529.8M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | — | $543.2M |
| Total Assets | $1.3B | $1.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.98× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $561.1M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $31.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $628.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $499.4M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $592.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $517.4M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $529.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $543.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $926.8M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.98× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 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 | — | $-52.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $-57.2M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | -20.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 1.8% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | -1.19× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $-52.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $-57.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | -20.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 1.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | -1.19× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
