vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Lake Shore Bancorp, Inc. (LSBK) and Metalla Royalty & Streaming Ltd. (MTA). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Lake Shore Bancorp, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($7.4M vs $3.8M, roughly 2.0× Metalla Royalty & Streaming Ltd.). Lake Shore Bancorp, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 31.8% vs -117.1%, a 148.9% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Lake Shore Bancorp, Inc. (Maryland) is a U.S. regional bank holding company that operates via its banking subsidiary, offering retail and commercial banking services including deposits, loans, mortgages and wealth management, primarily serving individuals and SMEs across local communities in Maryland.
Metalla Royalty & Streaming Ltd. is a precious metals royalty and streaming firm focused on gold, silver, and strategic mineral assets primarily across North America. It partners with mining operators to earn stable, leveraged returns without incurring the high costs and operational risks of direct mine ownership, catering to investors seeking low-volatility exposure to precious metals markets.
LSBK vs MTA — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $7.4M | $3.8M |
| Net Profit | $2.4M | $-4.4M |
| Gross Margin | — | 50.4% |
| Operating Margin | 38.4% | — |
| Net Margin | 31.8% | -117.1% |
| Revenue YoY | — | — |
| Net Profit YoY | — | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.32 | — |
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.
| Q3 25 | $7.4M | $3.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.9M | $2.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $3.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $981.0K |
| Q3 25 | $2.4M | $-4.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.9M | $-3.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-1.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-4.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-1.4M |
| Q3 25 | — | 50.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 39.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 39.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 48.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 59.3% |
| Q3 25 | 38.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 33.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -102.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -176.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -121.5% |
| Q3 25 | 31.8% | -117.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 27.7% | -151.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -138.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -120.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -138.2% |
| Q3 25 | $0.32 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.34 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 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 | $83.6M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $2.0M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $139.3M | — |
| Total Assets | $742.8M | — |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.01× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | $83.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $75.4M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | $2.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | $139.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $92.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | $742.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $734.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | 0.01× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.02× | — | ||
| 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 | $3.3M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $3.3M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 44.4% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.6% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.42× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | $3.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | $3.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | 44.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 28.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | 0.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.7% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | 1.42× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.31× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
