vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Laird Superfood, Inc. (LSF) and PURE CYCLE CORP (PCYO). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Laird Superfood, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($13.3M vs $9.1M, roughly 1.5× PURE CYCLE CORP). PURE CYCLE CORP runs the higher net margin — 50.0% vs -13.2%, a 63.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, PURE CYCLE CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (58.8% vs 15.0%). Over the past eight quarters, PURE CYCLE CORP's revenue compounded faster (69.0% 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.
Pure Cycles, is a bicycle company based in Los Angeles, California that was founded by Michael Fishman, Jordan Schau, Zachary Schau and Austin Stoffers in 2010, as Pure Fix Cycles.
LSF vs PCYO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $13.3M | $9.1M |
| Net Profit | $-1.8M | $4.6M |
| Gross Margin | 34.1% | 68.4% |
| Operating Margin | -13.5% | 48.0% |
| Net Margin | -13.2% | 50.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 15.0% | 58.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | -341.4% | 16.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $0.19 |
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 | $9.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.9M | $11.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $12.0M | $5.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.7M | $4.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $11.6M | $5.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8M | $12.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.0M | $7.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.9M | $3.2M |
| Q4 25 | $-1.8M | $4.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-975.1K | $6.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-362.2K | $2.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-156.2K | $809.0K | ||
| Q4 24 | $-398.4K | $3.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-166.1K | $6.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-239.1K | $2.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.0M | $118.0K |
| Q4 25 | 34.1% | 68.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 36.5% | 67.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 39.9% | 63.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 41.9% | 38.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 38.6% | 63.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 43.0% | 77.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 41.8% | 64.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 40.0% | 55.6% |
| Q4 25 | -13.5% | 48.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | -7.7% | 53.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.3% | 26.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.9% | -33.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | -4.1% | 29.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.3% | 62.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | -3.4% | 40.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | -11.0% | -11.5% |
| Q4 25 | -13.2% | 50.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | -7.6% | 54.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.0% | 43.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.3% | 20.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | -3.4% | 68.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | -1.4% | 52.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.4% | 37.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | -10.3% | 3.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.19 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.26 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.09 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.03 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.16 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.27 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0.12 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $0.00 |
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 | $17.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $8.0M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $11.5M | $147.5M |
| Total Assets | $19.2M | $168.1M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.05× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $5.1M | $17.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.1M | $21.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.9M | $14.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.0M | $16.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.3M | $19.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.9M | $22.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.6M | $20.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.1M | $20.6M |
| Q4 25 | — | $8.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $6.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $6.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $6.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $6.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $6.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $11.5M | $147.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.8M | $142.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $13.4M | $136.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.3M | $134.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $13.2M | $133.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $13.1M | $129.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.6M | $123.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $12.7M | $120.4M |
| Q4 25 | $19.2M | $168.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $18.9M | $162.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $20.4M | $151.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $21.5M | $149.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.3M | $149.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $18.8M | $147.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.0M | $140.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $17.6M | $135.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.05× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.05× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.05× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.05× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.05× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.05× | ||
| 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 | $-979.0K |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | -0.21× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $68.4K | $-979.0K | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2M | $9.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.8M | $-503.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.3M | $-1.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $339.2K | $5.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $305.8K | $3.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $642.7K | $892.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $-422.3K | $-457.0K |
| Q4 25 | — | -0.21× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.53× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -0.22× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -1.70× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.44× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.47× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.32× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -3.87× |
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% |
PCYO
| Construction | $6.5M | 71% |
| Water And Wastewater Resource Development Segment | $2.5M | 27% |
