vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Information Services Group Inc. (III) and Sila Realty Trust, Inc. (SILA). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Information Services Group Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($61.2M vs $50.1M, roughly 1.2× Sila Realty Trust, Inc.). Sila Realty Trust, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 10.0% vs 4.3%, a 5.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Sila Realty Trust, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (7.6% vs 5.9%). Over the past eight quarters, Sila Realty Trust, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (-0.6% CAGR vs -2.4%).
EBSCO Information Services, headquartered in Ipswich, Massachusetts, is a division of EBSCO Industries Inc., a private company headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. EBSCO provides products and services to libraries of many types around the world. Its products include EBSCONET, a complete e-resource management system, and EBSCOhost, which supplies a fee-based online research service with 375 full-text databases, a collection of 600,000-plus ebooks, subject indexes, point-of-care medical refere...
Sila Realty Trust, Inc. is a U.S.-based real estate investment trust that owns, operates, and acquires high-quality income-generating commercial properties. Its core portfolio covers industrial logistics facilities, office assets and mixed-use properties, serving tenants across logistics, corporate and retail segments to deliver stable long-term returns.
III vs SILA — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $61.2M | $50.1M |
| Net Profit | $2.6M | $5.0M |
| Gross Margin | 44.8% | 88.9% |
| Operating Margin | 8.4% | — |
| Net Margin | 4.3% | 10.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 5.9% | 7.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | -14.1% | -54.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.06 | $0.10 |
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 | $61.2M | $50.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $62.4M | $49.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $61.6M | $48.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $59.6M | $48.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $57.8M | $46.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $61.3M | $46.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $64.3M | $43.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $64.3M | $50.6M |
| Q4 25 | $2.6M | $5.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.1M | $11.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.2M | $8.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.5M | $7.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.0M | $11.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1M | $11.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0M | $4.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-3.4M | $15.0M |
| Q4 25 | 44.8% | 88.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 42.2% | 88.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 42.2% | 87.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 43.1% | 86.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 41.5% | 87.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 40.4% | 87.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 39.5% | 86.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 36.1% | 89.0% |
| Q4 25 | 8.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 7.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.6% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.7% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -3.7% | — |
| Q4 25 | 4.3% | 10.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.9% | 23.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.5% | 17.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.5% | 16.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.3% | 23.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.9% | 25.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.2% | 10.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | -5.3% | 29.6% |
| Q4 25 | $0.06 | $0.10 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.06 | $0.21 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.04 | $0.15 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.03 | $0.14 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.07 | $0.20 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.02 | $0.21 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.04 | $0.08 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.07 | $0.26 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $28.7M | $32.3M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $94.7M | $1.3B |
| Total Assets | $211.0M | $2.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $28.7M | $32.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $28.7M | $27.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $25.2M | $24.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $20.1M | $30.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $23.1M | $39.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.7M | $28.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $11.8M | $87.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $14.0M | $90.2M |
| Q4 25 | $94.7M | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $94.7M | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $94.1M | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $95.0M | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $96.3M | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $96.6M | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $95.5M | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $95.6M | $1.5B |
| Q4 25 | $211.0M | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $213.3M | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $200.7M | $2.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $202.4M | $2.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $204.5M | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $227.1M | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $235.3M | $2.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $234.2M | $2.1B |
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 | $5.1M | $119.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $4.3M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 7.0% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 1.2% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.94× | 23.76× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $25.0M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $5.1M | $119.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.1M | $30.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.9M | $31.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $978.0K | $24.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.6M | $132.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.8M | $29.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.2M | $31.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.3M | $36.6M |
| Q4 25 | $4.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $9.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.1M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $141.0K | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.3M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | 7.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 15.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 18.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 10.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.0% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.4% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.6% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.94× | 23.76× | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.62× | 2.59× | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.46× | 3.71× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.66× | 3.06× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.15× | 11.95× | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.66× | 2.43× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.07× | 6.84× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 2.44× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
