vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Health In Tech, Inc. (HIT) and Marti Technologies, Inc. (MRT). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Marti Technologies, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($14.6M vs $9.1M, roughly 1.6× Health In Tech, Inc.).
Tetra Tech, Inc. is an American consulting and engineering services firm based in Pasadena, California. The company provides consulting, engineering, program management, and construction management services in the areas of water, environment, infrastructure, resource management, energy, and international development.
The Marti Group is a Swiss construction company, consisting of over 80 subsidiaries, officially owned by Marti Holding AG. Besides Switzerland, they are active in neighboring countries such as Germany and Austria, and also outside of Europe such as China and Chile. The company is known for high-profile public and private sector projects and using innovative technologies. Their areas of expertise include building construction, construction and renovation of tunnels, road construction, hydrauli...
HIT vs MRT — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q2 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $9.1M | $14.6M |
| Net Profit | $-302.6K | — |
| Gross Margin | 45.3% | 49.4% |
| Operating Margin | -5.9% | -86.1% |
| Net Margin | -4.0% | — |
| Revenue YoY | — | 63.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.01 | $-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 | $9.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $9.9M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.6M | $14.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $8.9M |
| Q4 25 | $-302.6K | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $452.2K | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $630.6K | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $498.6K | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | 45.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 51.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 65.9% | 49.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 59.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | -5.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.7% | -86.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -204.1% |
| Q4 25 | -4.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.6% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.6% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $-0.01 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.01 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.01 | $-0.26 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.01 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-0.38 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $7.7M | $4.2M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $83.0M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $17.1M | $-73.2M |
| Total Assets | $23.1M | $17.2M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $7.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $8.1M | $4.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $9.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $83.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $60.2M |
| Q4 25 | $17.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $17.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $16.4M | $-73.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $14.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-51.2M |
| Q4 25 | $23.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $22.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $22.2M | $17.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $21.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $25.0M |
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 | $3.1M | — |
| 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 | $3.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $674.0K | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $527.4K | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.49× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.35× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.06× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
HIT
| Revenues From Fees | $6.5M | 71% |
| Other | $1.6M | 18% |
| Revenues From Underwriting Modeling ICE | $1.0M | 11% |
MRT
Segment breakdown not available.
