vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Genasys Inc. (GNSS) and SuperCom Ltd (SPCB), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Genasys Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($17.1M vs $14.2M, roughly 1.2× SuperCom Ltd). SuperCom Ltd runs the higher net margin — -4.8% vs 37.5%, a 42.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Genasys Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (145.9% vs -1.5%).
Genasys Inc. is based in San Diego, California. Its long-range acoustic device (LRAD) products are used for long-range acoustic hailing and mass notification. Its software-as-a-service products Genasys Protect and Evertel are used for zone-based multi-channel communication and secure messaging and collaboration, respectively. Genasys Acoustics are integrated speakers used to send long range voice broadcasts. The company was previously named American Technology Corporation (ATC) until 2010 and...
Super.com is a technology company headquartered in San Francisco and co-founded by Hussein Fazal and Henry Shi. The company provides financial services, including reward programs and travel bookings.
GNSS vs SPCB — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 2026 vs Q2 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $17.1M | $14.2M |
| Net Profit | $-817.0K | $5.3M |
| Gross Margin | 48.0% | 61.2% |
| Operating Margin | -2.1% | 16.3% |
| Net Margin | -4.8% | 37.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 145.9% | -1.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | 80.0% | 79.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.02 | $1.32 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $17.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $17.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.9M | $14.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.9M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.7M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.2M | $14.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-817.0K | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-6.5M | $5.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-6.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-4.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-11.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-6.7M | $3.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-6.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | 48.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 50.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 26.3% | 61.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 37.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 45.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 40.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 52.8% | 52.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 37.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | -2.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -60.1% | 16.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | -90.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -85.6% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -105.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -74.8% | 7.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | -121.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | -4.8% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -8.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -65.8% | 37.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -88.6% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -58.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -168.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -93.2% | 20.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | -120.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | $-0.02 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.03 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.14 | $1.32 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.14 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.09 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.26 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.15 | $1.19 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.16 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $10.3M | $15.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.8M | $37.3M |
| Total Assets | $67.6M | $65.5M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $10.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.5M | $15.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $13.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.7M | $5.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.2M | $37.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $13.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $17.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $28.5M | $13.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $34.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | $67.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $63.9M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $57.4M | $65.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $49.7M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $54.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $53.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $59.4M | $49.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $51.0M | — |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $7.2M | $-2.2M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $-3.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | -25.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 0.0% | 10.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | -0.41× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $7.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-5.9M | $-2.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-6.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $947.0K | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $556.0K | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-7.5M | $-950.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $-6.8M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-5.9M | $-3.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-6.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $878.0K | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $526.0K | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-7.5M | $-1.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-6.8M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -59.9% | -25.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | -93.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.7% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -105.0% | -10.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | -118.1% | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.1% | 10.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.1% | 4.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.2% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -0.41× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -0.32× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
GNSS
| Hardware | $14.8M | 87% |
| Software | $2.3M | 13% |
SPCB
Segment breakdown not available.
