vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Greenidge Generation Holdings Inc. (GREE) and Laird Superfood, Inc. (LSF). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Laird Superfood, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($13.3M vs $11.5M, roughly 1.2× Greenidge Generation Holdings Inc.). Greenidge Generation Holdings Inc. runs the higher net margin — 26.3% vs -13.2%, a 39.5% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Laird Superfood, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (15.0% vs -22.6%). Over the past eight quarters, Laird Superfood, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (16.1% CAGR vs -23.0%).
Greenidge Generation Holdings Inc. is a U.S.-based firm operating integrated cryptocurrency mining facilities and low-carbon power generation assets, including natural gas and renewable energy projects. It aligns digital asset mining with efficient energy use, primarily serving North American digital asset and energy market segments.
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.
GREE vs LSF — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $11.5M | $13.3M |
| Net Profit | $3.0M | $-1.8M |
| Gross Margin | — | 34.1% |
| Operating Margin | 14.7% | -13.5% |
| Net Margin | 26.3% | -13.2% |
| Revenue YoY | -22.6% | 15.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | 177.1% | -341.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.26 | — |
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 | $11.5M | $13.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $15.2M | $12.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $12.9M | $12.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $19.2M | $11.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $14.8M | $11.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.4M | $11.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $13.1M | $10.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $19.3M | $9.9M |
| Q4 25 | $3.0M | $-1.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.0M | $-975.1K | ||
| Q2 25 | $-4.1M | $-362.2K | ||
| Q1 25 | $-5.6M | $-156.2K | ||
| Q4 24 | $-3.9M | $-398.4K | ||
| Q3 24 | $-6.4M | $-166.1K | ||
| Q2 24 | $-5.6M | $-239.1K | ||
| Q1 24 | $-3.9M | $-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 | 14.7% | -13.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.0% | -7.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -26.4% | -3.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | -12.4% | -1.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | -8.9% | -4.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | -37.7% | -2.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -28.8% | -3.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | -8.9% | -11.0% |
| Q4 25 | 26.3% | -13.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 78.6% | -7.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | -32.0% | -3.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | -28.9% | -1.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | -26.4% | -3.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | -51.6% | -1.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -42.6% | -2.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | -20.4% | -10.3% |
| Q4 25 | $0.26 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.75 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.27 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.40 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.30 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.60 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.56 | — | ||
| 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 | $19.6M | $5.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $43.1M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $-46.3M | $11.5M |
| Total Assets | $53.6M | $19.2M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $19.6M | $5.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.6M | $5.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.4M | $3.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.9M | $7.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.6M | $8.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.6M | $7.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.3M | $7.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $14.3M | $7.1M |
| Q4 25 | $43.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $45.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $63.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $67.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $68.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $69.5M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $69.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $69.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-46.3M | $11.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-49.4M | $12.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-61.2M | $13.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-58.2M | $13.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-55.8M | $13.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-58.0M | $13.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-52.1M | $12.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-46.8M | $12.7M |
| Q4 25 | $53.6M | $19.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $50.6M | $18.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $52.8M | $20.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $56.7M | $21.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $64.9M | $19.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $59.9M | $18.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $62.9M | $18.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $74.6M | $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 | $-15.0M | $68.4K |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | -4.98× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $-15.0M | $68.4K | ||
| Q3 25 | $120.0K | $1.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-4.8M | $-2.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-5.7M | $-1.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-12.0M | $339.2K | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.9M | $305.8K | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.4M | $642.7K | ||
| Q1 24 | $-5.1M | $-422.3K |
| Q4 25 | -4.98× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.01× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
GREE
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% |
