vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Kimbell Royalty Partners, LP (KRP) and SILICOM LTD. (SILC). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Kimbell Royalty Partners, LP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($82.5M vs $61.9M, roughly 1.3× SILICOM LTD.). Kimbell Royalty Partners, LP runs the higher net margin — 30.1% vs -18.5%, a 48.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Kimbell Royalty Partners, LP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (23.6% vs 6.6%).
Kimbell Royalty Partners, LP is a publicly traded US limited partnership focused on owning and acquiring mineral and royalty interests in oil and gas properties across key domestic producing basins including the Permian, Bakken, and Eagle Ford. Its core revenue comes from production-linked royalty payments from its diversified onshore hydrocarbon asset portfolio.
Silicom Ltd. is a publicly traded company, headquartered in Israel, that specializes in the design, manufacture and marketing of connectivity solutions for a range of servers and server-based systems. Its shares are listed on the NASDAQ Global Market and on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. Silicom is a member of the RAD Group family of companies.
KRP vs SILC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $82.5M | $61.9M |
| Net Profit | $24.8M | $-11.5M |
| Gross Margin | — | 30.6% |
| Operating Margin | 39.6% | -19.8% |
| Net Margin | 30.1% | -18.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 23.6% | 6.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | 163.2% | 16.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $-2.01 |
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 | $82.5M | $61.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $80.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $86.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $84.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $66.7M | $58.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $83.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $76.6M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $82.2M | — |
| Q4 25 | $24.8M | $-11.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $22.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $26.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $25.9M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-39.3M | $-13.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $25.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $15.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 30.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 28.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | 39.6% | -19.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 35.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 43.7% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 39.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -58.0% | -22.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 40.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 31.2% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 21.4% | — |
| Q4 25 | 30.1% | -18.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 27.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 30.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 30.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -58.8% | -23.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 30.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 11.4% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $-2.01 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-2.28 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $44.0M | $42.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | — | $117.5M |
| Total Assets | $1.2B | $152.2M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $44.0M | $42.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $40.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $34.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $35.6M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $34.2M | $72.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $34.7M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $30.9M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $39.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $117.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $127.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | $152.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | $150.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $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 | $57.2M | $-2.2M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $-3.3M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | -5.4% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 1.9% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 2.31× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $57.2M | $-2.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $62.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $72.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $54.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $56.6M | $18.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $62.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $62.9M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $69.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $-3.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $17.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | -5.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 29.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | 2.31× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.81× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.71× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.09× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.42× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.14× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.39× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
KRP
| Oil And Condensate | $45.9M | 56% |
| Natural Gas Midstream | $19.5M | 24% |
| NGL Revenue | $10.6M | 13% |
| Other | $6.4M | 8% |
SILC
Segment breakdown not available.
