vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of STANDARD BIOTOOLS INC. (LAB) and TPG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. (MITT). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
TPG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($20.4M vs $19.6M, roughly 1.0× STANDARD BIOTOOLS INC.). TPG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 65.0% vs -177.4%, a 242.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, TPG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (17.7% vs -11.5%). Over the past eight quarters, TPG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (9.1% CAGR vs -12.2%).
Standard BioTools Inc., previously known as Fluidigm Corp., is an American life science tools company that offers analytical mass cytometry systems for flow cytometry and tissue imaging, along with associated assays and reagents, as well as an automated genomic analysis instrument and a variety of microfluidic arrays, or integrated fluidic circuits (IFCs), and consumables with fully kitted reagents. Custom assays and services are available with all systems and applications.
TPG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment trust managed by global alternative asset firm TPG. It primarily invests in residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities, performing and non-performing mortgage loans, and other credit-linked real estate assets, with its core market being the United States. It generates returns via net interest income from holdings and strategic asset disposition gains.
LAB vs MITT — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $19.6M | $20.4M |
| Net Profit | $-34.7M | $13.3M |
| Gross Margin | 48.5% | — |
| Operating Margin | -168.5% | 67.1% |
| Net Margin | -177.4% | 65.0% |
| Revenue YoY | -11.5% | 17.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | -28.8% | -7.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.09 | $0.27 |
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 | — | $20.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $19.6M | $19.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $21.8M | $17.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $40.8M | $18.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $17.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $22.1M | $14.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $22.5M | $16.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $45.5M | $17.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | $13.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-34.7M | $20.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-33.5M | $3.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-26.0M | $11.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $14.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-26.9M | $16.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-45.7M | $3.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-32.2M | $20.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 48.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 48.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 48.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 54.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 46.1% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 53.1% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 67.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | -168.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -118.1% | 20.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -80.8% | 54.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 76.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | -120.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -134.5% | 18.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | -132.2% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 65.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | -177.4% | 102.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -153.7% | 22.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | -63.8% | 60.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 82.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -122.0% | 111.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -203.3% | 24.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | -70.6% | 121.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.27 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.09 | $0.47 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.09 | $-0.05 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.07 | $0.21 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.30 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.07 | $0.40 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.12 | $-0.02 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.27 | $0.55 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $129.4M | $57.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $399.7M | $560.7M |
| Total Assets | $539.6M | $8.7B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $57.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $129.4M | $59.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $158.6M | $88.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $150.9M | $115.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $118.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $210.6M | $102.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $269.8M | $120.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $287.1M | $100.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $55.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $55.1M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $55.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $560.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $399.7M | $559.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $424.5M | $536.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $454.6M | $543.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $543.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $489.3M | $540.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $510.3M | $533.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $577.3M | $539.6M |
| Q4 25 | — | $8.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $539.6M | $9.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $557.0M | $7.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $579.6M | $7.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $6.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $681.5M | $7.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $708.7M | $7.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $777.7M | $6.4B |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.11× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.11× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.10× | — |
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 | $-22.2M | $59.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-23.1M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -118.1% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 4.5% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 4.48× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-111.1M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $59.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-22.2M | $17.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-20.7M | $11.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-30.3M | $12.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $55.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-27.9M | $14.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-39.0M | $13.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-62.5M | $12.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-23.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-22.6M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-35.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-30.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-41.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-63.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -118.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -103.6% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -86.6% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -136.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -182.2% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -138.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.7% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 12.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.6% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.7% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 4.48× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.87× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.92× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.05× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 3.91× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.87× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 3.50× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.57× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
LAB
| Consumables | $8.7M | 45% |
| Services And Other Revenue | $5.8M | 29% |
| Instruments | $5.1M | 26% |
MITT
Segment breakdown not available.
