vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Laird Superfood, Inc. (LSF) and Metalpha Technology Holding Ltd (MATH). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Laird Superfood, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($13.3M vs $12.0M, roughly 1.1× Metalpha Technology Holding Ltd). Laird Superfood, Inc. runs the higher net margin — -13.2% vs -24.0%, a 10.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Laird Superfood, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (15.0% vs -39.0%).
Laird Superfood, Inc. develops, manufactures and sells a portfolio of plant-based functional superfood products, including premium coffee creamers, hydration blends, nutritional supplements, and plant-powered snacks. It serves health-conscious consumers through direct-to-consumer e-commerce platforms and offline retail partners, mainly operating in the North American market with a focus on sustainably sourced clean ingredients.
Metalpha Technology Holding LtdMATHEarnings & Financial Report
Metalpha Technology Holding Ltd is a global fintech firm specializing in digital asset wealth management, institutional-grade crypto investment services, and Web3 ecosystem infrastructure support. It serves professional investors, financial institutions, and high-net-worth clients across Asia, North America and Europe, with core segments including structured digital asset products, risk management solutions and DeFi technology development.
LSF vs MATH — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $13.3M | $12.0M |
| Net Profit | $-1.8M | $-2.9M |
| Gross Margin | 34.1% | 28.3% |
| Operating Margin | -13.5% | -24.2% |
| Net Margin | -13.2% | -24.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 15.0% | -39.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | -341.4% | -147.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $-0.07 |
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 | $13.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.9M | $12.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $12.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.7M | $24.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $11.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8M | $19.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-1.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-975.1K | $-2.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-362.2K | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-156.2K | $9.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-398.4K | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-166.1K | $6.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-239.1K | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | 34.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 36.5% | 28.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 39.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 41.9% | 85.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 38.6% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 43.0% | 49.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 41.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 40.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | -13.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -7.7% | -24.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.9% | 39.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | -4.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.3% | 38.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -3.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -11.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | -13.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -7.6% | -24.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.3% | 39.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | -3.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -1.4% | 30.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -10.3% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-0.07 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.25 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.16 | ||
| Q2 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 | $5.1M | $10.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $101.2K |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $11.5M | $35.1M |
| Total Assets | $19.2M | $413.8M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.00× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $5.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.1M | $10.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.0M | $6.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.9M | $3.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.6M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $101.2K | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $188.0K | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $275.1K | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $11.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.8M | $35.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $13.4M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.3M | $36.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $13.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $13.1M | $25.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.6M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $12.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | $19.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $18.9M | $413.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $20.4M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $21.5M | $246.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $18.8M | $237.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $17.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.00× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.01× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.01× | ||
| Q2 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 | $68.4K | $3.3M |
| 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 | $68.4K | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2M | $3.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.3M | $16.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $339.2K | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $305.8K | $-16.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $642.7K | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-422.3K | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.64× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -2.66× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
LSF
| Wholesale | $7.0M | 52% |
| Coffee Tea And Hot Chocolate Products | $4.4M | 33% |
| Hydration And Beverage Enhancing Supplements | $1.6M | 12% |
| Other | $352.6K | 3% |
MATH
Segment breakdown not available.
