vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of BingEx Ltd (FLX) and Tecnoglass Inc. (TGLS). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Tecnoglass Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($245.3M vs $143.2M, roughly 1.7× BingEx Ltd). Tecnoglass Inc. runs the higher net margin — 10.6% vs 2.2%, a 8.4% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Tecnoglass Inc. is a leading manufacturer of high-performance architectural glass, aluminum windows, doors, and associated building components. It primarily caters to residential and commercial construction sectors across North America and Latin America, offering custom, energy-efficient solutions for new construction and renovation projects.
FLX vs TGLS — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $143.2M | $245.3M |
| Net Profit | $3.2M | $26.1M |
| Gross Margin | 10.8% | 40.0% |
| Operating Margin | — | 18.3% |
| Net Margin | 2.2% | 10.6% |
| Revenue YoY | — | 2.4% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | -44.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $0.57 |
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 | — | $245.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $141.2M | $260.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $143.0M | $255.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $141.0M | $222.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $239.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $164.6M | $238.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $219.7M |
| Q1 26 | $3.2M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $26.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.1M | $47.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.5M | $44.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $27.6M | $42.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $47.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.4M | $49.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $35.0M |
| Q1 26 | 10.8% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 40.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.1% | 42.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.0% | 44.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.0% | 43.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 44.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.3% | 45.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 40.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 18.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.4% | 25.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.9% | 24.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 26.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 28.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.0% | 28.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 23.3% |
| Q1 26 | 2.2% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 10.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.4% | 18.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.2% | 17.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.6% | 19.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 19.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.1% | 20.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 15.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $0.57 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.01 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.94 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.90 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.00 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.05 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0.75 |
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 | $104.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $174.4M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | — | $713.1M |
| Total Assets | $1.3B | $1.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.24× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $561.1M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $104.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $628.6M | $127.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $499.4M | $140.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $592.4M | $160.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $137.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $517.4M | $124.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $129.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $174.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $114.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $110.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $110.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $111.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $126.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $144.7M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $713.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $764.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $736.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $685.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $631.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $613.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $574.8M |
| Q1 26 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $1.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $926.8M | $996.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $942.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.24× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.15× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.15× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.16× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.18× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.21× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.25× |
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 | — | $31.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $11.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 4.7% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 8.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 1.19× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $34.5M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $31.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $40.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $17.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $46.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $61.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $41.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $34.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $11.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $21.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-14.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $16.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $35.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $17.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $14.2M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 4.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 8.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -5.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 7.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 14.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 7.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 6.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 8.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 7.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 12.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 13.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 10.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 9.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 9.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 1.19× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.85× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.41× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.11× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.30× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.84× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.98× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
FLX
Segment breakdown not available.
TGLS
| Product Sales | $164.2M | 67% |
| Fixed Price Contracts | $81.1M | 33% |
| Related Party | $692.0K | 0% |
