vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Five Point Holdings, LLC (FPH) and Magyar Bancorp, Inc. (MGYR). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Five Point Holdings, LLC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($13.6M vs $8.9M, roughly 1.5× Magyar Bancorp, Inc.). Magyar Bancorp, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 35.4% vs -16.4%, a 51.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Magyar Bancorp, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (19.0% vs 3.2%).
Five Point Holdings, LLC is a leading U.S. real estate development company that focuses on planning and constructing large-scale master-planned mixed-use communities in high-demand markets across California. Its projects integrate residential housing, commercial office spaces, retail outlets, public amenities and recreational facilities to build vibrant, sustainable living and working environments for local populations.
Magyar Bank is a bank based in New Brunswick, New Jersey with branches in Central Jersey.
FPH vs MGYR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $13.6M | $8.9M |
| Net Profit | $-2.2M | $3.1M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -43.5% | 48.3% |
| Net Margin | -16.4% | 35.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 3.2% | 19.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | -109.6% | 50.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $0.50 |
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 | $13.6M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $75.9M | $8.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $13.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $159.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $17.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $51.2M | $7.2M |
| Q1 26 | $-2.2M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $58.7M | $3.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $21.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $23.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $121.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $14.7M | $1.7M |
| Q1 26 | -43.5% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 89.0% | 48.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 87.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 83.6% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 86.1% | 30.5% |
| Q1 26 | -16.4% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 77.3% | 35.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 156.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 44.4% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 177.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 75.7% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 28.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 28.8% | 23.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $0.50 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0.27 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $332.6M | $34.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $49.1M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.3B | $121.7M |
| Total Assets | $3.2B | $1.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.40× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $332.6M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $425.5M | $34.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $351.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $456.6M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $528.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $430.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $224.5M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $217.4M | $49.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $49.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | $2.3B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.3B | $121.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.3B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.2B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.2B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.2B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.0B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0B | $109.0M |
| Q1 26 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.2B | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.2B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.1B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.9B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.9B | $944.4M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.40× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| 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 | $-44.5M | $3.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $3.7M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 41.4% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 1.17× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $8.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $-44.5M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $105.2M | $3.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $40.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-71.6M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $56.7M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $116.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-18.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-23.2M | $1.7M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $105.0M | $3.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-71.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $56.7M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $115.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-18.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-23.6M | $1.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 138.4% | 41.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -959.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 430.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 72.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -106.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -46.1% | 21.5% |
| Q1 26 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.3% | 0.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.3% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.7% | 2.0% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.79× | 1.17× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.92× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -21.58× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.44× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.96× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -3.77× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -1.58× | 1.00× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
