vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Laird Superfood, Inc. (LSF) and NEW ENGLAND REALTY ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (NEN). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
NEW ENGLAND REALTY ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($23.6M vs $13.3M, roughly 1.8× Laird Superfood, Inc.). Laird Superfood, Inc. runs the higher net margin — -13.2% vs -677.3%, a 664.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, NEW ENGLAND REALTY ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (15.7% vs 15.0%). Over the past eight quarters, Laird Superfood, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (16.1% CAGR vs 8.9%).
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.
New England Realty Associates Limited Partnership is a real estate investment entity that owns, operates and manages residential and commercial properties primarily across the U.S. New England region. Its core assets include multifamily apartments, mixed-use properties and small commercial spaces, serving tenants across Massachusetts, New Hampshire and adjacent states, delivering steady returns to unitholders via rental income and property value growth.
LSF vs NEN — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $13.3M | $23.6M |
| Net Profit | $-1.8M | $-1.4M |
| Gross Margin | 34.1% | — |
| Operating Margin | -13.5% | 14.0% |
| Net Margin | -13.2% | -677.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 15.0% | 15.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | -341.4% | -133.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | — |
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 | $23.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.9M | $23.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $12.0M | $21.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.7M | $20.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $11.6M | $20.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8M | $20.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.0M | $20.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.9M | $19.9M |
| Q4 25 | $-1.8M | $-1.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-975.1K | $-521.8K | ||
| Q2 25 | $-362.2K | $4.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-156.2K | $3.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-398.4K | $4.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-166.1K | $3.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-239.1K | $4.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.0M | $3.5M |
| 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% | 14.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | -7.7% | 20.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.3% | 33.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.9% | 30.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | -4.1% | 32.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.3% | 32.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | -3.4% | 32.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | -11.0% | 28.9% |
| Q4 25 | -13.2% | -677.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | -7.6% | -2.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.0% | 19.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.3% | 18.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | -3.4% | 20.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | -1.4% | 19.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.4% | 20.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | -10.3% | 17.4% |
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 | $26.7M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $531.0M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $11.5M | — |
| Total Assets | $19.2M | $505.3M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $5.1M | $26.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.1M | $13.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.9M | $16.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.0M | $30.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.3M | $17.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.9M | $15.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.6M | $13.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.1M | $28.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | $531.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $514.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $514.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $407.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $408.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $409.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $410.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $410.7M |
| Q4 25 | $11.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $13.4M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $13.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $13.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.6M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $12.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | $19.2M | $505.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $18.9M | $492.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $20.4M | $494.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $21.5M | $385.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.3M | $393.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $18.8M | $387.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.0M | $383.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $17.6M | $381.2M |
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 | $27.7M |
| 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 | $27.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2M | $2.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.8M | $12.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.3M | $5.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $339.2K | $31.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $305.8K | $8.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $642.7K | $5.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-422.3K | $6.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 3.02× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.44× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 7.57× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.17× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.32× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.77× |
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% |
NEN
Segment breakdown not available.
