vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Laird Superfood, Inc. (LSF) and SCYNEXIS INC (SCYX). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
SCYNEXIS INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($18.6M vs $13.3M, roughly 1.4× Laird Superfood, Inc.). SCYNEXIS INC runs the higher net margin — 65.7% vs -13.2%, a 78.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, SCYNEXIS INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (1808.5% vs 15.0%). Over the past eight quarters, SCYNEXIS INC's revenue compounded faster (268.5% 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.
SCYNEXIS Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on developing innovative antifungal therapies to address unmet medical needs for difficult-to-treat fungal infections. It targets hospital and specialty care markets, with key product candidates serving immunocompromised patients and other high-risk groups.
LSF vs SCYX — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $13.3M | $18.6M |
| Net Profit | $-1.8M | $12.3M |
| Gross Margin | 34.1% | — |
| Operating Margin | -13.5% | 56.3% |
| Net Margin | -13.2% | 65.7% |
| Revenue YoY | 15.0% | 1808.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | -341.4% | 376.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $0.25 |
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 | $18.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.9M | $334.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | $12.0M | $1.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.7M | $257.0K | ||
| Q4 24 | $11.6M | $977.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8M | $660.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.0M | $736.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.9M | $1.4M |
| Q4 25 | $-1.8M | $12.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-975.1K | $-8.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-362.2K | $-6.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-156.2K | $-5.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-398.4K | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-166.1K | $-2.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-239.1K | $-14.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.0M | $411.0K |
| 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% | 56.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | -7.7% | -2516.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.3% | -701.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.9% | -3350.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | -4.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.3% | -1563.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | -3.4% | -1255.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | -11.0% | -692.5% |
| Q4 25 | -13.2% | 65.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | -7.6% | -2572.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.0% | -504.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.3% | -2097.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | -3.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -1.4% | -425.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.4% | -1964.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | -10.3% | 29.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.25 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-0.17 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-0.14 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-0.11 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-0.06 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-0.30 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $0.01 |
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 | $40.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $11.5M | $49.4M |
| Total Assets | $19.2M | $59.0M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $5.1M | $40.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.1M | $37.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.9M | $44.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.0M | $40.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.3M | $59.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.9M | $68.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.6M | $73.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.1M | $80.2M |
| Q4 25 | $11.5M | $49.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.8M | $36.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $13.4M | $44.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.3M | $50.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $13.2M | $55.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $13.1M | $58.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.6M | $60.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $12.7M | $74.1M |
| Q4 25 | $19.2M | $59.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $18.9M | $51.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $20.4M | $60.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $21.5M | $67.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.3M | $90.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $18.8M | $99.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.0M | $107.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $17.6M | $118.3M |
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 | $18.4M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 1.50× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $68.4K | $18.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2M | $-8.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.8M | $-7.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.3M | $-7.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $339.2K | $-24.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $305.8K | $765.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | $642.7K | $-10.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-422.3K | $-4.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.50× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -9.75× |
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% |
SCYX
| Glaxosmithkline Intellectual Property | $17.2M | 92% |
| Products | $1.4M | 8% |
