vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Howard Hughes Holdings Inc. (HHH) and Opendoor Technologies Inc. (OPENW), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Opendoor Technologies Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($736.0M vs $624.4M, roughly 1.2× Howard Hughes Holdings Inc.). Howard Hughes Holdings Inc. runs the higher net margin — 1.0% vs -148.9%, a 149.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Opendoor Technologies Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (-32.1% vs -33.2%). Howard Hughes Holdings Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($348.6M vs $67.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Howard Hughes Holdings Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (91.0% CAGR vs -21.1%).
Howard Hughes Holdings Inc., formerly the Howard Hughes Corporation, is a real estate development and management company based in The Woodlands, Texas. It was formed in 2010 as a spin-off from General Growth Properties (GGP). Most of its holdings are focused on several master-planned communities. It took its name from the original Howard Hughes Corporation, which had developed the planned community of Summerlin, Nevada, and later became a subsidiary of GGP.
Opendoor Technologies Inc. is an online company that buys and sells residential real estate. Headquartered in San Francisco, it makes instant cash offers on homes through an online process, makes repairs on the properties it purchases and re-lists them for sale. It also provides mobile application-based home buying services along with financing. As of November 2021, the company operates in 44 markets in the US.
HHH vs OPENW — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $624.4M | $736.0M |
| Net Profit | $6.0M | $-1.1B |
| Gross Margin | — | 7.7% |
| Operating Margin | 4.2% | -20.4% |
| Net Margin | 1.0% | -148.9% |
| Revenue YoY | -33.2% | -32.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | -96.2% | -869.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.20 | $-1.42 |
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 | $624.4M | $736.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $390.2M | $915.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $260.9M | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $199.3M | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $935.0M | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $327.1M | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $317.4M | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $171.1M | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | $6.0M | $-1.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $119.5M | $-90.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-12.1M | $-29.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.5M | $-85.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $156.3M | $-113.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $72.8M | $-78.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $21.1M | $-92.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-52.5M | $-109.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 7.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 7.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 8.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 8.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 7.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 7.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 8.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 9.7% |
| Q4 25 | 4.2% | -20.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 48.6% | -7.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 26.0% | -0.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 24.0% | -4.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 33.5% | -8.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 60.6% | -4.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 20.4% | -4.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | -9.8% | -7.4% |
| Q4 25 | 1.0% | -148.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 30.6% | -9.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | -4.7% | -1.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.3% | -7.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 16.7% | -10.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 22.2% | -5.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 6.6% | -6.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | -30.7% | -9.2% |
| Q4 25 | $0.20 | $-1.42 | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.02 | $-0.12 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.22 | $-0.04 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.21 | $-0.12 | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.14 | $-0.16 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.46 | $-0.11 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.42 | $-0.13 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.06 | $-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 | $1.5B | $962.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $5.1B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.8B | $1.0B |
| Total Assets | $10.6B | $2.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.35× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $1.5B | $962.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.5B | $962.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | $789.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $493.7M | $559.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $596.1M | $679.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $400.7M | $837.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $436.8M | $809.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $462.7M | $990.0M |
| Q4 25 | $5.1B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.1B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $3.8B | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.8B | $811.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.6B | $631.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.8B | $645.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.8B | $713.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.6B | $801.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.0B | $845.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.9B | $899.0M |
| Q4 25 | $10.6B | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.7B | $2.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.3B | $2.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.3B | $3.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.2B | $3.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.4B | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.9B | $3.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.6B | $3.4B |
| Q4 25 | 1.35× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.85× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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 | $360.3M | $70.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $348.6M | $67.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 55.8% | 9.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 1.9% | 0.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 60.04× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $417.6M | $1.0B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $360.3M | $70.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $149.8M | $435.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $177.3M | $823.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-224.9M | $-279.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $337.1M | $-80.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $248.3M | $62.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-17.5M | $-399.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-171.2M | $-178.0M |
| Q4 25 | $348.6M | $67.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $137.7M | $432.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $169.7M | $821.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-238.4M | $-283.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $317.1M | $-83.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $238.7M | $56.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-25.1M | $-407.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-182.0M | $-186.0M |
| Q4 25 | 55.8% | 9.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 35.3% | 47.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 65.1% | 52.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | -119.6% | -24.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 33.9% | -7.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 73.0% | 4.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | -7.9% | -26.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -106.4% | -15.7% |
| Q4 25 | 1.9% | 0.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.1% | 0.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.9% | 0.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.8% | 0.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.1% | 0.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.9% | 0.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.4% | 0.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.3% | 0.7% |
| Q4 25 | 60.04× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.25× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -21.35× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.16× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.41× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -0.83× | — | ||
| 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
HHH
| Transferred At Point In Time | $499.8M | 80% |
| Operating Assets Segment | $117.9M | 19% |
| Builder Price Participation | $12.9M | 2% |
OPENW
Segment breakdown not available.
