vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Laird Superfood, Inc. (LSF) and TPG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. (MITT). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
TPG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($20.4M vs $13.3M, roughly 1.5× Laird Superfood, Inc.). TPG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 65.0% vs -13.2%, a 78.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, TPG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (17.7% vs 15.0%). Over the past eight quarters, Laird Superfood, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (16.1% CAGR vs 9.1%).
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.
TPG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment trust managed by global alternative asset firm TPG. It primarily invests in residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities, performing and non-performing mortgage loans, and other credit-linked real estate assets, with its core market being the United States. It generates returns via net interest income from holdings and strategic asset disposition gains.
LSF vs MITT — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $13.3M | $20.4M |
| Net Profit | $-1.8M | $13.3M |
| Gross Margin | 34.1% | — |
| Operating Margin | -13.5% | 67.1% |
| Net Margin | -13.2% | 65.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 15.0% | 17.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | -341.4% | -7.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $0.27 |
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 | $20.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.9M | $19.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $12.0M | $17.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.7M | $18.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $11.6M | $17.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8M | $14.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.0M | $16.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.9M | $17.2M |
| Q4 25 | $-1.8M | $13.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-975.1K | $20.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-362.2K | $3.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-156.2K | $11.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-398.4K | $14.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-166.1K | $16.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-239.1K | $3.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.0M | $20.9M |
| Q4 25 | 34.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 36.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 39.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 41.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 38.6% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 43.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 41.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 40.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | -13.5% | 67.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | -7.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.3% | 20.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.9% | 54.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | -4.1% | 76.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -3.4% | 18.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | -11.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | -13.2% | 65.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | -7.6% | 102.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.0% | 22.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.3% | 60.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | -3.4% | 82.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -1.4% | 111.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.4% | 24.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | -10.3% | 121.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.27 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.47 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-0.05 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.21 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.30 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.40 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-0.02 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $0.55 |
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 | $57.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $11.5M | $560.7M |
| Total Assets | $19.2M | $8.7B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $5.1M | $57.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.1M | $59.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.9M | $88.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.0M | $115.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.3M | $118.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.9M | $102.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.6M | $120.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.1M | $100.3M |
| Q4 25 | $11.5M | $560.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.8M | $559.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $13.4M | $536.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.3M | $543.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $13.2M | $543.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $13.1M | $540.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.6M | $533.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $12.7M | $539.6M |
| Q4 25 | $19.2M | $8.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $18.9M | $9.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $20.4M | $7.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $21.5M | $7.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.3M | $6.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $18.8M | $7.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.0M | $7.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $17.6M | $6.4B |
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 | $59.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 4.48× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $68.4K | $59.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2M | $17.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.8M | $11.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.3M | $12.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $339.2K | $55.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $305.8K | $14.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $642.7K | $13.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-422.3K | $12.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 4.48× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.87× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.92× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.05× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 3.91× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.87× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 3.50× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.57× |
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% |
MITT
Segment breakdown not available.
