vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. (HPP) and Texas Pacific Land Corporation (TPL). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($256.0M vs $211.6M, roughly 1.2× Texas Pacific Land Corporation). Texas Pacific Land Corporation runs the higher net margin — 58.3% vs -109.4%, a 167.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (22.1% vs 13.9%). Over the past eight quarters, Texas Pacific Land Corporation's revenue compounded faster (10.2% CAGR vs 9.4%).
Hudson Pacific Properties is a real estate investment trust with 15.8 million square feet of office buildings, 1.5 million square feet of sound stages, and undeveloped rights for 3 million square feet of additional commercial property. Its properties are on the West Coast of the United States and Vancouver. It is organized in Maryland and headquartered in Los Angeles. It is the largest independent operator of sound stages in Los Angeles.
The Texas Pacific Land Corporation is a publicly traded real estate operating company with its administrative office in Dallas, Texas. Owning over 880,000 acres (3,600 km2) in 20 West Texas counties, TPL is among the largest private landowners in the state of Texas. It was previously organized as a publicly traded trust taxed as a corporation, and operated under the name Texas Pacific Land Trust.
HPP vs TPL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $256.0M | $211.6M |
| Net Profit | $-280.2M | $123.3M |
| Gross Margin | 60.0% | — |
| Operating Margin | -109.8% | 70.5% |
| Net Margin | -109.4% | 58.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 22.1% | 13.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | -61.5% | 4.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-11.57 | $-8.59 |
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 | $256.0M | $211.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $186.6M | $203.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $190.0M | $187.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $198.5M | $196.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $209.7M | $185.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $200.4M | $173.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $218.0M | $172.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $214.0M | $174.1M |
| Q4 25 | $-280.2M | $123.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-144.1M | $121.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-87.8M | $116.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-80.3M | $120.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-173.5M | $118.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-107.0M | $106.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-47.6M | $114.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-53.4M | $114.4M |
| Q4 25 | 60.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 44.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 43.1% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 42.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 44.7% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 42.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 48.0% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 48.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | -109.8% | 70.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | -77.2% | 73.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -46.0% | 76.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | -40.4% | 76.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | -83.2% | 76.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | -52.3% | 73.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -21.6% | 77.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | -24.9% | 78.1% |
| Q4 25 | -109.4% | 58.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | -77.2% | 59.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -46.2% | 61.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -40.5% | 61.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | -82.7% | 63.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | -53.4% | 61.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -21.8% | 66.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | -24.9% | 65.7% |
| Q4 25 | $-11.57 | $-8.59 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.30 | $5.27 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.41 | $5.05 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.53 | $5.24 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-1.19 | $5.14 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.69 | $4.63 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.33 | $4.98 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.37 | $4.97 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $138.4M | $144.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.0B | $1.5B |
| Total Assets | $7.3B | $1.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $138.4M | $144.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $190.4M | $531.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $236.0M | $543.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $86.5M | $460.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $63.3M | $369.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $90.7M | $533.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $78.5M | $894.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $114.3M | $837.1M |
| Q4 25 | $3.0B | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.2B | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.4B | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.8B | $1.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.9B | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.0B | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.1B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.2B | $1.1B |
| Q4 25 | $7.3B | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.8B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $8.1B | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.0B | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.1B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.3B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.4B | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $8.3B | $1.3B |
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 | $121.0M | $113.7M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 0.92× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $121.0M | $113.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $33.2M | $154.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.0M | $120.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $30.5M | $156.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $164.7M | $126.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $63.7M | $118.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $35.6M | $98.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $65.1M | $147.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.92× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.28× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.04× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.30× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.07× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.11× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.86× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.29× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
HPP
| Core Office | $217.1M | 85% |
| Studio Segment | $21.8M | 9% |
| Ancillary Revenue | $20.2M | 8% |
| Chargebacks | $3.3M | 1% |
TPL
| Water Serviceand Operations Segment | $98.2M | 46% |
| Water Sales And Royalties | $60.7M | 29% |
| Produced Water Royalties | $33.5M | 16% |
| Easementand Sundry | $20.6M | 10% |
