vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Professional Diversity Network, Inc. (IPDN) and Shattuck Labs, Inc. (STTK). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Professional Diversity Network, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.7M vs $1.0M, roughly 1.7× Shattuck Labs, Inc.). Professional Diversity Network, Inc. runs the higher net margin — -173.5% vs -1005.6%, a 832.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Professional Diversity Network, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (3.1% vs -66.6%). Professional Diversity Network, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($1.4M vs $-9.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Shattuck Labs, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (20.7% CAGR vs -1.7%).
Professional Diversity Network, Inc. is a U.S.-based firm offering end-to-end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) solutions for corporate clients. Its services include targeted recruitment support for underrepresented talent groups, customized DEI training programs, and diversity performance data analytics, serving clients across tech, healthcare, finance and other core commercial sectors nationwide.
Shattuck Labs, Inc.STTKEarnings & Financial Report
Shattuck Labs, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing innovative immunotherapies for cancer and autoimmune diseases. It uses its proprietary Agonist Redirected Checkpoint platform to develop bifunctional fusion proteins, with multiple oncology product candidates in active clinical development stages.
IPDN vs STTK — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.7M | $1.0M |
| Net Profit | $-2.9M | $-10.1M |
| Gross Margin | 33.7% | — |
| Operating Margin | -173.2% | -1071.6% |
| Net Margin | -173.5% | -1005.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 3.1% | -66.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | -280.0% | 39.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $-0.14 |
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 | $1.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.7M | $1.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.6M | $0 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.5M | $0 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.7M | $3.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.7M | $1.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.7M | $1.1M |
| Q4 25 | $-2.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.4M | $-10.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-476.0K | $-12.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-722.1K | $-13.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-761.9K | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-405.0K | $-16.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-553.1K | $-21.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-791.8K | $-18.5M |
| Q4 25 | 33.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 44.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 43.4% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 52.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 58.6% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 58.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 62.9% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 62.2% | — |
| Q4 25 | -173.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -136.3% | -1071.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | -30.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -46.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -36.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -25.0% | -597.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -34.4% | -1427.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | -46.5% | -1797.7% |
| Q4 25 | -173.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -136.2% | -1005.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | -29.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -48.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -47.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -23.9% | -556.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -32.7% | -1339.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | -45.9% | -1659.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-0.14 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-0.24 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-0.27 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-0.33 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-0.42 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-0.37 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $217.0K | $42.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $11.7M | $93.2M |
| Total Assets | $17.9M | $100.3M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $217.0K | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $265.3K | $42.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $125.1K | $50.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $496.4K | $60.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $133.7K | $43.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $619.3K | $60.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $97.1K | $76.0M |
| Q4 25 | $11.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.9M | $93.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.5M | $57.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.9M | $67.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.1M | $96.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.5M | $110.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.3M | $128.8M |
| Q4 25 | $17.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.1M | $100.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.3M | $64.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.7M | $77.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.3M | $111.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.8M | $128.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.7M | $146.3M |
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 | $1.4M | $-8.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $1.4M | $-9.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 84.4% | -900.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.0% | 7.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $1.4M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.7M | $-8.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-495.5K | $-10.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-284.1K | $-12.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-1.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-556.9K | $-16.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-224.4K | $-10.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-543.1K | $-16.2M |
| Q4 25 | $1.4M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.7M | $-9.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-499.5K | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-1.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-558.9K | $-16.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-225.9K | $-10.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-543.6K | — |
| Q4 25 | 84.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -156.8% | -900.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -30.4% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -74.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -33.0% | -537.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | -13.4% | -679.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | -31.5% | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.0% | 7.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.1% | 1.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.1% | 1.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
