vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Greystone Housing Impact Investors LP (GHI) and Laird Superfood, Inc. (LSF). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Greystone Housing Impact Investors LP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($15.0M vs $13.3M, roughly 1.1× Laird Superfood, Inc.). Laird Superfood, Inc. runs the higher net margin — -13.2% vs -38.9%, a 25.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Laird Superfood, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (15.0% vs -33.6%). Over the past eight quarters, Laird Superfood, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (16.1% CAGR vs -18.1%).
Greystone Housing Impact Investors LP is a publicly traded real estate investment partnership focused on acquiring, owning, and managing affordable and workforce multifamily housing properties across the United States. It prioritizes investments that generate stable long-term returns while expanding housing access for low and middle income communities.
Laird Superfood, Inc. develops, manufactures and sells a portfolio of plant-based functional superfood products, including premium coffee creamers, hydration blends, nutritional supplements, and plant-powered snacks. It serves health-conscious consumers through direct-to-consumer e-commerce platforms and offline retail partners, mainly operating in the North American market with a focus on sustainably sourced clean ingredients.
GHI vs LSF — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $15.0M | $13.3M |
| Net Profit | $-5.8M | $-1.8M |
| Gross Margin | — | 34.1% |
| Operating Margin | -33.4% | -13.5% |
| Net Margin | -38.9% | -13.2% |
| Revenue YoY | -33.6% | 15.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | -157.6% | -341.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.31 | — |
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 | $15.0M | $13.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $21.7M | $12.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $23.6M | $12.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $25.1M | $11.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $22.6M | $11.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $24.3M | $11.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $22.0M | $10.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $22.4M | $9.9M |
| Q4 25 | $-5.8M | $-1.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.0M | $-975.1K | ||
| Q2 25 | $-7.1M | $-362.2K | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.3M | $-156.2K | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.1M | $-398.4K | ||
| Q3 24 | $-4.6M | $-166.1K | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.2M | $-239.1K | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.6M | $-1.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 34.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 36.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 39.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 41.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 38.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 43.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 41.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 40.0% |
| Q4 25 | -33.4% | -13.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.1% | -7.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -30.0% | -3.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.2% | -1.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 45.0% | -4.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | -19.0% | -2.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 23.6% | -3.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 47.6% | -11.0% |
| Q4 25 | -38.9% | -13.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.1% | -7.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | -30.0% | -3.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.2% | -1.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 44.9% | -3.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | -19.0% | -1.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 23.6% | -2.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 47.6% | -10.3% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.31 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.03 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.35 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.11 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.38 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.23 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.19 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.42 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $39.5M | $5.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | — | $11.5M |
| Total Assets | $1.5B | $19.2M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $39.5M | $5.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $36.2M | $5.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $47.5M | $3.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $51.4M | $7.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $14.7M | $8.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $37.4M | $7.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $34.0M | $7.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $56.3M | $7.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | $11.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $12.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $13.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $13.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $13.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $13.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $12.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $12.7M |
| Q4 25 | $1.5B | $19.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.5B | $18.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.5B | $20.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.5B | $21.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6B | $19.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | $18.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.5B | $18.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.5B | $17.6M |
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 | $37.5M | $68.4K |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $37.5M | $68.4K | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.4M | $1.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.2M | $-2.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.3M | $-1.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $18.0M | $339.2K | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.9M | $305.8K | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.1M | $642.7K | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.4M | $-422.3K |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.25× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.11× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.78× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.98× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.32× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
GHI
Segment breakdown not available.
LSF
| Wholesale | $7.0M | 52% |
| Coffee Tea And Hot Chocolate Products | $4.4M | 33% |
| Hydration And Beverage Enhancing Supplements | $1.6M | 12% |
| Other | $352.6K | 3% |
