vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of INNSUITES HOSPITALITY TRUST (IHT) and W. P. Carey Inc. (WPC), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
W. P. Carey Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($444.5M vs $1.8M, roughly 246.3× INNSUITES HOSPITALITY TRUST). W. P. Carey Inc. runs the higher net margin — -19.8% vs 33.4%, a 53.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, W. P. Carey Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (9.4% vs -1.1%). Over the past eight quarters, W. P. Carey Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (6.8% CAGR vs 2.1%).
InnSuites Hospitality Trust, based in Phoenix, Arizona, is a real estate investment trust that invests in lodging. While it is formed as a real estate investment trust, it is not classified as a real estate investment trust for tax purposes. The company owns interests in two hotels, operates three hotels, provides management for three hotels, and licenses its InnSuites trademark for five hotels. The company's hotel ownership interests are a 51.01% interest in the Best Western InnSuites Tucson...
W. P. Carey is a real estate investment trust that invests in properties leased to single tenants via NNN leases. The company is organized in Maryland, with its primary office in New York City.
IHT vs WPC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.8M | $444.5M |
| Net Profit | $-356.9K | $148.3M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -10.0% | 34.5% |
| Net Margin | -19.8% | 33.4% |
| Revenue YoY | -1.1% | 9.4% |
| Net Profit YoY | -29.1% | 215.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.04 | — |
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 | $1.8M | $444.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.8M | $431.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.2M | $430.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.6M | $409.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.8M | $406.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.8M | $397.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.3M | $389.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.7M | $389.8M |
| Q4 25 | $-356.9K | $148.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-391.2K | $141.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-121.0K | $51.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-595.2K | $125.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-276.4K | $47.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-370.9K | $111.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-148.6K | $142.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-113.0K | $159.2M |
| Q4 25 | -10.0% | 34.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | -13.3% | 34.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.1% | 15.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | -30.9% | 33.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | -7.1% | 13.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | -15.5% | 30.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.8% | 38.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | -35.3% | 43.0% |
| Q4 25 | -19.8% | 33.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | -21.7% | 32.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -5.5% | 11.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -36.4% | 30.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | -15.1% | 11.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | -20.2% | 28.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | -6.5% | 36.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | -6.5% | 40.8% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.04 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.04 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.01 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.07 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.03 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.04 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.02 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.02 | — |
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 | — | $155.3M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $11.3M | $8.7B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.6M | $8.1B |
| Total Assets | $13.9M | $18.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 3.12× | 1.07× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $155.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $249.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $244.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $187.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $640.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $818.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.3M | $777.0M |
| Q4 25 | $11.3M | $8.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.2M | $8.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.5M | $8.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.7M | $7.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.3M | $8.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.0M | $8.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.7M | $8.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.7M | $7.9B |
| Q4 25 | $3.6M | $8.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.0M | $8.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.4M | $8.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.6M | $8.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.2M | $8.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.5M | $8.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.0M | $8.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.2M | $8.7B |
| Q4 25 | $13.9M | $18.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $14.2M | $18.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $14.0M | $18.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $14.2M | $17.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $15.0M | $17.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $15.1M | $17.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $15.3M | $17.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $15.7M | $17.6B |
| Q4 25 | 3.12× | 1.07× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.82× | 1.06× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.37× | 1.05× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.34× | 0.94× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.98× | 0.95× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.81× | 0.93× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.61× | 0.94× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.58× | 0.91× |
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 | $-145.1K | $304.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 2.05× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $-145.1K | $304.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-153.0K | $300.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $279.8K | $404.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-408.1K | $273.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-146.7K | $296.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-44.6K | $280.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-459.4K | $221.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-79.3K | $1.0B |
| Q4 25 | — | 2.05× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.13× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 7.89× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.17× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 6.30× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.51× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.55× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 6.50× |
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.
