vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Li Bang International Corp Inc. (LBGJ) and MOVING iMAGE TECHNOLOGIES INC. (MITQ). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Li Bang International Corp Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($4.7M vs $3.8M, roughly 1.2× MOVING iMAGE TECHNOLOGIES INC.). MOVING iMAGE TECHNOLOGIES INC. runs the higher net margin — -10.2% vs -23.9%, a 13.6% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Li & Fung Limited is a Hong Kong–based supply chain management company. Established in 1906, the company became publicly traded in 1973 and has since played a significant role in manufacturing apparel, toys, and various consumer goods for major North American and European retailers. Significant growth occurred after its public listing, reaching a peak market capitalization in 2011, but the rise of platforms like Alibaba and Amazon, which directly connect manufacturers with consumers, created ...
Silicon Image Inc. was an American fabless semiconductor company based in Hillsboro, Oregon, and active from 1995 to 2015. The company designed circuits for mobile phones, consumer electronics and personal computers (PCs). It also manufactured wireless and wired connectivity products used for high-definition content. The company's semiconductor and IP products were deployed by manufacturers in devices such as smartphones, tablets, digital televisions (DTVs), and other consumer electronics, as...
LBGJ vs MITQ — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2024 vs Q2 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $4.7M | $3.8M |
| Net Profit | $-1.1M | $-388.0K |
| Gross Margin | 17.8% | 30.7% |
| Operating Margin | -25.1% | -10.8% |
| Net Margin | -23.9% | -10.2% |
| Revenue YoY | — | 10.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | 26.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.06 | $-0.04 |
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 | — | $3.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $5.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.7M | $3.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $5.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $6.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $3.9M | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $3.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | $-388.0K | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $509.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-240.0K | ||
| Q4 24 | $-1.1M | $-527.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-25.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-416.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-601.0K | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $-794.0K |
| Q4 25 | — | 30.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 30.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 29.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 17.8% | 27.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 26.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 22.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 17.4% | ||
| Q4 23 | — | 23.2% |
| Q4 25 | — | -10.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 6.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -7.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | -25.1% | -16.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -1.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -7.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -16.7% | ||
| Q4 23 | — | -25.4% |
| Q4 25 | — | -10.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 9.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -6.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | -23.9% | -15.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -0.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -6.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -15.4% | ||
| Q4 23 | — | -24.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | $-0.04 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.05 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-0.02 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.06 | $-0.05 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.00 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-0.04 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-0.06 | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $-0.07 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | — | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $10.2M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $7.8M | $5.0M |
| Total Assets | $28.8M | $9.5M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.31× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $5.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $5.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $5.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.8M | $5.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $5.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $5.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $6.3M | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $7.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | $9.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $11.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $11.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $28.8M | $10.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $10.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $10.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $12.7M | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $12.5M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.31× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | — |
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 | $258.4K | $-1.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $-1.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-167.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $53.0K | ||
| Q4 24 | $258.4K | $70.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-32.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-472.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.0M | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $-1.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | $-1.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | -35.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q4 23 | — | 0.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -0.33× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — | ||
| Q4 23 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
