vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Laird Superfood, Inc. (LSF) and SITE Centers Corp. (SITC). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
SITE Centers Corp. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($20.5M vs $13.3M, roughly 1.5× Laird Superfood, Inc.). SITE Centers Corp. runs the higher net margin — 657.2% vs -13.2%, a 670.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Laird Superfood, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (15.0% vs -41.4%). Over the past eight quarters, Laird Superfood, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (16.1% CAGR vs -53.4%).
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.
SITE Centers Corp. is a publicly traded real estate investment trust that invests in shopping centers. Founded in 1965 by Bert Wolstein, the company is headquartered in Beachwood, Ohio. As of December 31, 2019 the company owned interests in 170 shopping centers in the United States containing 57.0 million square feet and managed 13.2 million square feet for Retail Value Inc. Notable properties wholly owned by the company include Shopper's World in Framingham, Massachusetts. Its major tenants ...
LSF vs SITC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $13.3M | $20.5M |
| Net Profit | $-1.8M | $134.4M |
| Gross Margin | 34.1% | — |
| Operating Margin | -13.5% | — |
| Net Margin | -13.2% | 657.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 15.0% | -41.4% |
| Net Profit YoY | -341.4% | 2409.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $2.55 |
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 | $20.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.9M | $27.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $12.0M | $33.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.7M | $42.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $11.6M | $34.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8M | $61.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.0M | $87.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.9M | $94.1M |
| Q4 25 | $-1.8M | $134.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-975.1K | $-6.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-362.2K | $46.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-156.2K | $3.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-398.4K | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-166.1K | $323.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-239.1K | $238.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.0M | $-23.6M |
| 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% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -7.7% | -22.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.9% | 7.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | -4.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -3.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -11.0% | -34.8% |
| Q4 25 | -13.2% | 657.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | -7.6% | -22.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.0% | 138.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.3% | 7.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | -3.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -1.4% | 529.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.4% | 272.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | -10.3% | -25.0% |
| Q4 25 | — | $2.55 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-0.13 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.88 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.06 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $6.07 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $4.45 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-0.51 |
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 | $119.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $11.5M | $334.8M |
| Total Assets | $19.2M | $418.7M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $5.1M | $119.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.1M | $128.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.9M | $153.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.0M | $58.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.3M | $54.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.9M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.6M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.1M | $551.3M |
| Q4 25 | $11.5M | $334.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.8M | $308.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $13.4M | $486.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.3M | $519.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $13.2M | $516.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $13.1M | $2.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.6M | $2.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $12.7M | $2.1B |
| Q4 25 | $19.2M | $418.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $18.9M | $654.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $20.4M | $959.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $21.5M | $929.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.3M | $933.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $18.8M | $3.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.0M | $4.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $17.6M | $3.9B |
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 | $19.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 0.15× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $68.4K | $19.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2M | $5.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.8M | $17.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.3M | $5.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $339.2K | $112.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $305.8K | $36.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $642.7K | $66.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-422.3K | $40.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.15× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.37× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.86× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.11× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.28× | ||
| Q1 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% |
SITC
Segment breakdown not available.
