vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of INNEOVA Holdings Ltd (INEO) and Kura Oncology, Inc. (KURA). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
INNEOVA Holdings Ltd is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($30.8M vs $17.3M, roughly 1.8× Kura Oncology, Inc.). Kura Oncology, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($115.0M vs $-1.5M).
Kura Oncology, Inc.KURAEarnings & Financial Report
Kura Sushi, Inc. is a Japanese conveyor belt sushi restaurant chain. It is the second largest sushi restaurant chain in Japan, behind Sushiro and ahead of Hama Sushi. Its headquarters are in Sakai, Osaka Prefecture. It has 543 locations in Japan, 56 in Taiwan, and 69 in the United States.
INEO vs KURA — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $30.8M | $17.3M |
| Net Profit | $243.0K | — |
| Gross Margin | 19.3% | — |
| Operating Margin | 3.6% | -497.6% |
| Net Margin | 0.8% | — |
| Revenue YoY | — | — |
| Net Profit YoY | — | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.02 | $-0.92 |
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 | — | $17.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $20.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $30.8M | $15.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $14.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-74.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $243.0K | $-66.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-57.4M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 19.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | -497.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -385.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.6% | -475.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -458.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -357.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.8% | -432.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -407.1% |
| Q4 25 | — | $-0.92 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-0.85 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.02 | $-0.75 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-0.66 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $2.1M | $149.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $2.9M | $9.7M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $11.2M | $174.1M |
| Total Assets | $52.6M | $738.4M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.26× | 0.06× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $149.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $95.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.1M | $81.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $51.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | $9.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $174.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $242.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.2M | $305.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $364.4M |
| Q4 25 | — | $738.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $649.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $52.6M | $682.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $743.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.06× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.26× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — |
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 | $-301.0K | $117.3M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-1.5M | $115.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -4.8% | 663.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 3.8% | 13.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | -1.24× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $-70.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $117.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-80.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-301.0K | $-28.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-71.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | $115.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-83.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.5M | $-30.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-72.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | 663.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -400.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | -4.8% | -197.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -511.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | 13.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 12.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.8% | 9.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.1% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -1.24× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
