vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of GLADSTONE LAND Corp (LAND) and SolarMax Technology, Inc. (SMXT). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
SolarMax Technology, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($46.6M vs $41.5M, roughly 1.1× GLADSTONE LAND Corp). GLADSTONE LAND Corp runs the higher net margin — 10.2% vs -1.9%, a 12.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, SolarMax Technology, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (623.5% vs 96.5%).
Hongkong Land (HKL) is a property investment, management and development group with commercial and residential property interests across Asia. It owns and manages some 850,000 sq. m. of office and retail property in Asia, principally in Hong Kong and Singapore. Its Hong Kong portfolio represents some 450,000 sq. m. of commercial property, making it the single largest landlord in Central, Hong Kong. In Singapore it has 165,000 sq. m. of office space mainly held through joint ventures. While it...
SolarMax Technology, Inc. develops, manufactures and sells high-efficiency solar PV modules and clean energy systems. It serves residential, commercial and industrial clients in North America and key Asia-Pacific markets, offering installation and after-sales support to boost low-carbon energy use.
LAND vs SMXT — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $41.5M | $46.6M |
| Net Profit | $4.2M | $-872.2K |
| Gross Margin | — | 2.7% |
| Operating Margin | — | -2.7% |
| Net Margin | 10.2% | -1.9% |
| Revenue YoY | 96.5% | 623.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | 680.0% | 77.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.05 | $-0.02 |
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 | $41.5M | $46.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $17.8M | $30.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $12.3M | $6.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $16.8M | $6.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $21.1M | $6.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $22.6M | $6.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $21.3M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $20.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | $4.2M | $-872.2K | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.1M | $-2.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-7.9M | $-1.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $15.1M | $-1.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $540.0K | $-3.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.0K | $-9.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-823.0K | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $13.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 2.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 3.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 8.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 20.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 14.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 19.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | -2.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -6.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -25.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -16.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -27.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -158.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | 10.2% | -1.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.7% | -7.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -64.1% | -27.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 89.9% | -18.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.6% | -60.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.0% | -152.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | -3.9% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 67.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | $-0.05 | $-0.02 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.11 | $-0.04 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.38 | $-0.04 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.25 | $-0.03 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.15 | $-0.07 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.16 | $-0.21 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.19 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.21 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $27.2M | $8.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $473.6M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $670.3M | $-12.2M |
| Total Assets | $1.2B | $91.3M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.71× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $27.2M | $8.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.3M | $5.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $30.5M | $1.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $42.9M | $6.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $18.3M | $7.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $13.2M | $8.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $49.8M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $51.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | $473.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $480.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $496.4M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $498.8M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $527.5M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $530.7M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $549.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $552.2M | — |
| Q4 25 | $670.3M | $-12.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $661.8M | $-11.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $670.1M | $-15.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $689.9M | $-15.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $687.2M | $-15.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $691.2M | $-10.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $708.5M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $723.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | $91.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $58.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3B | $38.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $38.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.3B | $38.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.3B | $43.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.4B | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.71× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.73× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.74× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.72× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.77× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.77× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.78× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.76× | — |
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 | $7.0M | $-2.5M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.66× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $7.0M | $-2.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-12.0M | $3.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.9M | $220.7K | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.5M | $-601.1K | ||
| Q4 24 | $29.5M | $-1.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.4M | $203.6K | ||
| Q2 24 | $15.9M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.4M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.66× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -5.77× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.30× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 54.72× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -227.83× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.25× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
LAND
Segment breakdown not available.
SMXT
| Yabucoa | $35.9M | 77% |
| Other | $10.7M | 23% |
