vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Laird Superfood, Inc. (LSF) and EVERSPIN TECHNOLOGIES INC. (MRAM). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
EVERSPIN TECHNOLOGIES INC. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($14.9M vs $13.3M, roughly 1.1× Laird Superfood, Inc.). EVERSPIN TECHNOLOGIES INC. runs the higher net margin — -2.0% vs -13.2%, a 11.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Laird Superfood, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (15.0% vs 13.2%). Over the past eight quarters, EVERSPIN TECHNOLOGIES INC.'s revenue compounded faster (18.2% CAGR vs 16.1%).
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.
Everspin Technologies, Inc. is a publicly traded semiconductor company headquartered in Chandler, Arizona, United States. It develops and manufactures discrete magnetoresistive RAM or magnetoresistive random-access memory (MRAM) products, including Toggle MRAM and Spin-Transfer Torque MRAM (STT-MRAM) product families. It also licenses its technology for use in embedded MRAM (eMRAM) applications, magnetic sensor applications as well as performs backend foundry services for eMRAM.
LSF vs MRAM — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $13.3M | $14.9M |
| Net Profit | $-1.8M | $-296.0K |
| Gross Margin | 34.1% | 52.7% |
| Operating Margin | -13.5% | 29.0% |
| Net Margin | -13.2% | -2.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 15.0% | 13.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | -341.4% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $-0.01 |
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.
| Q1 26 | — | $14.9M | ||
| Q4 25 | $13.3M | $14.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.9M | $14.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $12.0M | $13.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.7M | $13.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $11.6M | $13.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8M | $12.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.0M | $10.6M |
| Q1 26 | — | $-296.0K | ||
| Q4 25 | $-1.8M | $1.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-975.1K | $54.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | $-362.2K | $-670.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $-156.2K | $-1.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-398.4K | $1.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-166.1K | $2.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-239.1K | $-2.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | 52.7% | ||
| Q4 25 | 34.1% | 50.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 36.5% | 51.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 39.9% | 51.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 41.9% | 51.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 38.6% | 51.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 43.0% | 49.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 41.8% | 49.0% |
| Q1 26 | — | 29.0% | ||
| Q4 25 | -13.5% | -7.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | -7.7% | -11.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.3% | -14.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.9% | -14.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | -4.1% | -11.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.3% | -17.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | -3.4% | -26.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | -2.0% | ||
| Q4 25 | -13.2% | 8.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | -7.6% | 0.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.0% | -5.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.3% | -8.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | -3.4% | 9.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -1.4% | 18.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.4% | -23.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | $-0.01 | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $0.05 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.00 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-0.03 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-0.05 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.07 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.10 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-0.12 |
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 | $40.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $11.5M | $70.2M |
| Total Assets | $19.2M | $83.2M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $40.5M | ||
| Q4 25 | $5.1M | $44.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.1M | $45.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.9M | $45.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.0M | $42.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.3M | $42.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.9M | $39.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.6M | $36.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | $70.2M | ||
| Q4 25 | $11.5M | $68.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.8M | $65.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $13.4M | $64.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.3M | $63.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $13.2M | $62.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $13.1M | $59.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.6M | $55.4M |
| Q1 26 | — | $83.2M | ||
| Q4 25 | $19.2M | $84.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $18.9M | $80.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $20.4M | $78.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $21.5M | $80.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.3M | $77.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $18.8M | $72.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.0M | $64.6M |
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 | $570.0K |
| 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.
| Q1 26 | — | $570.0K | ||
| Q4 25 | $68.4K | $2.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2M | $881.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.8M | $5.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.3M | $1.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $339.2K | $3.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $305.8K | $2.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $642.7K | $1.7M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $-975.0K | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $543.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $3.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $527.0K | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.7M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | -6.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 3.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 22.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 4.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 15.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 22.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 15.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 24.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 15.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 6.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 13.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 2.19× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 16.31× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 3.16× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.25× | ||
| Q2 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% |
MRAM
| Product sales | $14.1M | 95% |
| Licensing, royalty, patent, engineering services and other revenue | $772.0K | 5% |
