vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Globalstar, Inc. (GSAT) and UP Fintech Holding Ltd (TIGR). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
UP Fintech Holding Ltd is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($107.6M vs $72.0M, roughly 1.5× Globalstar, Inc.). UP Fintech Holding Ltd runs the higher net margin — 28.4% vs -16.1%, a 44.6% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Globalstar, Inc. is an American telecommunications company that operates a satellite constellation in low Earth orbit (LEO) for satellite phone, low-speed data transmission and Earth observation. The Globalstar second-generation constellation consists of 25 satellites.
UP Fintech Holding Limited, operating under the Tiger Brokers brand, provides online financial services for global Chinese investors. It offers cross-market stock trading (US, Hong Kong, mainland China A-shares), fund management, margin financing and investor education for retail and institutional clients.
GSAT vs TIGR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $72.0M | $107.6M |
| Net Profit | $-11.6M | $30.6M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -0.5% | — |
| Net Margin | -16.1% | 28.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 17.6% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | 76.9% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.11 | $0.01 |
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 | $72.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $73.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $67.1M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $60.0M | $107.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $61.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $72.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $60.4M | $166.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $56.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-11.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $19.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-17.3M | $30.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-50.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-9.7M | $15.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-13.2M | — |
| Q4 25 | -0.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -14.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -6.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.4% | 14.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | -8.3% | — |
| Q4 25 | -16.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 28.6% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -28.9% | 28.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | -82.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -16.0% | 9.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | -23.4% | — |
| Q4 25 | $-0.11 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.01 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.13 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.16 | $0.01 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.57 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.00 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.01 | $0.01 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.01 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $447.5M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $483.8M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $355.7M | — |
| Total Assets | $2.3B | — |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.36× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $447.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $346.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $308.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $241.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $391.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $51.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $64.3M | $392.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $59.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | $483.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $508.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $491.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $502.7M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $511.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $394.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $393.1M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $398.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | $355.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $364.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $360.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $344.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $358.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $394.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $383.0M | $501.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $377.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | $2.3B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.2B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.9B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.7B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.7B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $917.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $926.2M | $4.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $917.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.36× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.39× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.36× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.46× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.43× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.00× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.03× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.06× | — |
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 | $175.9M | — |
| 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 | $175.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $236.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $157.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $51.9M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $340.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $32.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $36.7M | $155.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $29.8M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $153.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 92.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 216.53× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.22× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.23× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 10.20× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
GSAT
| Services | $67.4M | 94% |
| Products | $4.6M | 6% |
TIGR
Segment breakdown not available.
