vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Logistic Properties of the Americas (LPA) and Namib Minerals (NAMM). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Logistic Properties of the Americas is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($50.1M vs $41.9M, roughly 1.2× Namib Minerals). Logistic Properties of the Americas produced more free cash flow last quarter ($21.4M vs $7.4M).
Logistic Properties of the Americas is a specialized industrial real estate firm that acquires, develops and manages logistics properties across North, Central and South America. Its portfolio includes distribution centers, warehouses and last-mile delivery facilities, serving e-commerce, retail, manufacturing and third-party logistics clients.
Namib Minerals is a Namibia-based natural resources firm focused on exploration, development and extraction of high-demand mineral deposits including uranium, copper and lithium. It operates across licensed southern African sites, supplying raw materials to global clean energy, construction and electronics manufacturing sectors.
LPA vs NAMM — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q2 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $50.1M | $41.9M |
| Net Profit | $16.1M | — |
| Gross Margin | — | 45.7% |
| Operating Margin | 81.7% | 29.8% |
| Net Margin | 32.1% | — |
| Revenue YoY | — | — |
| Net Profit YoY | — | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.33 | — |
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 | $50.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $32.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $21.5M | $41.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.5M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $19.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.2M | — |
| Q4 25 | $16.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 45.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | 81.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 29.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | 32.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $0.33 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.09 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.06 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.26 | — | ||
| 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 | $27.3M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $296.8M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $324.6M | — |
| Total Assets | $700.8M | — |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.91× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $27.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | $296.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $324.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $700.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.91× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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 | $21.6M | $11.4M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $21.4M | $7.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 42.7% | 17.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.3% | 9.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.34× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $12.0M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $21.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $14.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.2M | $11.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.3M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.8M | — |
| Q4 25 | $21.4M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-7.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-3.1M | $7.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $966.4K | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-2.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $218.9K | — |
| Q4 25 | 42.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -22.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -14.4% | 17.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -12.3% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.4% | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 66.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 47.9% | 9.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 32.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 55.5% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 50.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.34× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
