vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Greenland Technologies Holding Corp. (GTEC) and INNEOVA Holdings Ltd (INEO). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
INNEOVA Holdings Ltd is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($30.8M vs $23.9M, roughly 1.3× Greenland Technologies Holding Corp.). INNEOVA Holdings Ltd runs the higher net margin — 0.8% vs -6.6%, a 7.4% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Greenland Technologies Holding Corp is a specialized developer and manufacturer of electric industrial vehicles, lithium-ion drivetrain systems and industrial clean energy solutions. Its core products include electric forklifts and electric construction equipment components, serving logistics, construction and industrial customers across North America and Asia Pacific.
GTEC vs INEO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q2 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $23.9M | $30.8M |
| Net Profit | $-1.6M | $243.0K |
| Gross Margin | 35.4% | 19.3% |
| Operating Margin | -0.1% | 3.6% |
| Net Margin | -6.6% | 0.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 23.4% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | -120.8% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.11 | $0.02 |
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 | $23.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $23.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $21.7M | $30.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $21.7M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $18.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $23.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $22.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-1.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-3.2M | $243.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-684.4K | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.7M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | 35.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 32.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 26.5% | 19.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 30.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 26.6% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 26.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 29.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 24.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | -0.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 21.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -10.7% | 3.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 22.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 19.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 17.3% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 8.5% | — |
| Q4 25 | -6.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 24.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -14.8% | 0.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 18.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 39.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -3.6% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 20.2% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 11.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | $-0.11 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.33 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.20 | $0.02 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.29 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.56 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.05 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.34 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.18 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $32.2M | $2.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $2.9M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $72.9M | $11.2M |
| Total Assets | $115.8M | $52.6M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.26× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $32.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $33.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $23.1M | $2.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $20.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $25.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $24.7M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $22.6M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $18.8M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $72.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $75.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $69.2M | $11.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $64.6M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $60.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $57.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $56.3M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $51.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | $115.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $123.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $123.6M | $52.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $118.6M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $115.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $127.5M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $126.8M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $139.2M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.26× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 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 | $7.8M | $-301.0K |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $-1.5M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | -4.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 3.8% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | -1.24× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $7.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.7M | $-301.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $11.3M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-8.4M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-1.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-9.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 34.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -4.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 30.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -42.3% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 3.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.2% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.44× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -1.24× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.31× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.57× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.44× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -3.37× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
GTEC
| Transmission Boxes For Forklift | $23.1M | 97% |
| Other | $758.3K | 3% |
INEO
Segment breakdown not available.
