vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Health In Tech, Inc. (HIT) and Rexford Industrial Realty, Inc. (REXR), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Health In Tech, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($7.5M vs $197.0K, roughly 38.1× Rexford Industrial Realty, Inc.). Health In Tech, Inc. runs the higher net margin — -4.0% vs -34383.2%, a 34379.2% gap on every dollar of revenue.
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.
Genpact Ltd. is an American information technology services, consulting, and outsourcing company headquartered in New York City, New York. Founded in Gurgaon, India, and legally domiciled in Bermuda, Genpact employs more than 125,000 people and provides services to clients in over 30 countries worldwide. Genpact is listed on the NYSE and generated revenues of US$4.48 billion in 2023.
HIT vs REXR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $7.5M | $197.0K |
| Net Profit | $-302.6K | $-67.7M |
| Gross Margin | 55.0% | — |
| Operating Margin | -5.9% | — |
| Net Margin | -4.0% | -34383.2% |
| Revenue YoY | — | 18.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | -204.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.01 | $-0.29 |
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 | $7.5M | $197.0K | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.5M | $118.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.3M | $132.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.0M | $142.0K | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $167.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $156.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $156.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $132.0K |
| Q4 25 | $-302.6K | $-67.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $452.2K | $89.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $630.6K | $116.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $498.6K | $71.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $64.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $67.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $82.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $61.4M |
| Q4 25 | 55.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 60.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 67.7% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 66.8% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | -5.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | -4.0% | -34383.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.3% | 76202.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.8% | 88131.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 6.2% | 50140.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 38868.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 43442.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 52869.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 46493.2% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.01 | $-0.29 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.01 | $0.37 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.01 | $0.48 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.01 | $0.30 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.26 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.30 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0.37 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $0.27 |
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 | $7.7M | $165.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $3.3B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $17.1M | $8.5B |
| Total Assets | $23.1M | $12.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.38× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $7.7M | $165.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.0M | $249.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $8.1M | $431.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.6M | $504.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $56.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $61.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $125.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $337.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | $3.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $3.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $3.3B |
| Q4 25 | $17.1M | $8.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $17.2M | $8.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $16.4M | $8.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $14.2M | $8.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $8.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $8.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $8.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $8.0B |
| Q4 25 | $23.1M | $12.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $22.8M | $12.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $22.2M | $13.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $21.3M | $13.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $12.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $12.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $12.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $12.4B |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.38× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.37× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.38× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.38× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.40× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.42× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.42× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.42× |
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 | $451.2K | $111.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $29.8M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 15135.5% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | 41587.8% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $208.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $451.2K | $111.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $674.0K | $149.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.5M | $128.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $527.4K | $152.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $116.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $127.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $101.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $133.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | $29.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $60.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $45.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $73.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $27.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $7.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $16.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $53.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | 15135.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 51254.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 34061.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 51692.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 16694.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 4644.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 10606.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 40799.2% |
| Q4 25 | — | 41587.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 75552.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 63027.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 55738.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 52920.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 76921.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 54562.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 60531.1% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.49× | 1.66× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.35× | 1.10× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.06× | 2.14× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.79× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.88× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.23× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 2.18× |
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
HIT
| Revenues From Fees | $6.5M | 86% |
| Revenues From Underwriting Modeling ICE | $1.0M | 14% |
REXR
Segment breakdown not available.
