vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Laird Superfood, Inc. (LSF) and WINMARK CORP (WINA). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
WINMARK CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($21.1M vs $13.3M, roughly 1.6× Laird Superfood, Inc.). WINMARK CORP runs the higher net margin — 47.2% vs -13.2%, a 60.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Laird Superfood, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (15.0% vs 7.9%). Over the past eight quarters, Laird Superfood, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (16.1% CAGR vs 2.4%).
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.
Winmark Corporation is an American franchisor of five retail businesses that specialize in buying and selling used goods. The company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Winmark was founded in 1988 as Play It Again Sports Franchise Corporation by Ron Olson and Jeffrey Dahlberg after they purchased the Play It Again Sports franchise rights from Martha Morris. They renamed the company to Grow Biz International Inc. in June 1993. Grow Biz went public in August 1993. In 2000, John Morgan replaced...
LSF vs WINA — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $13.3M | $21.1M |
| Net Profit | $-1.8M | $10.0M |
| Gross Margin | 34.1% | — |
| Operating Margin | -13.5% | 61.7% |
| Net Margin | -13.2% | 47.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 15.0% | 7.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | -341.4% | 3.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $2.68 |
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 | $21.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.9M | $22.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $12.0M | $20.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.7M | $21.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $11.6M | $19.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8M | $21.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.0M | $20.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.9M | $20.1M |
| Q4 25 | $-1.8M | $10.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-975.1K | $11.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-362.2K | $10.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-156.2K | $10.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-398.4K | $9.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-166.1K | $11.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-239.1K | $10.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.0M | $8.8M |
| 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% | 61.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | -7.7% | 65.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.3% | 64.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.9% | 62.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | -4.1% | 65.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.3% | 69.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -3.4% | 64.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | -11.0% | 60.8% |
| Q4 25 | -13.2% | 47.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | -7.6% | 49.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.0% | 51.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1.3% | 45.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | -3.4% | 49.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | -1.4% | 51.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.4% | 51.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | -10.3% | 43.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | $2.68 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.02 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.89 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.71 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.60 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $3.03 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.85 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.41 |
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 | $10.3M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $11.5M | $-53.7M |
| Total Assets | $19.2M | $24.9M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $5.1M | $10.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.1M | $39.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.9M | $28.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.0M | $21.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.3M | $12.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.9M | $37.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.6M | $29.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.1M | $22.9M |
| Q4 25 | $11.5M | $-53.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.8M | $-26.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $13.4M | $-36.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.3M | $-45.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $13.2M | $-51.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $13.1M | $-33.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.6M | $-42.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $12.7M | $-52.6M |
| Q4 25 | $19.2M | $24.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $18.9M | $53.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $20.4M | $43.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $21.5M | $37.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.3M | $26.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $18.8M | $52.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.0M | $44.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $17.6M | $38.3M |
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 | $8.5M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $8.5M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 40.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 0.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 0.86× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $44.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $68.4K | $8.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2M | $12.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.8M | $9.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.3M | $15.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $339.2K | $8.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $305.8K | $12.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $642.7K | $8.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-422.3K | $13.4M |
| Q4 25 | — | $8.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $12.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $9.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $15.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $12.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $8.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $13.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | 40.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 53.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 44.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 68.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 56.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 40.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 66.0% |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.4% |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.86× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.10× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.85× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.51× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.88× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.09× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.79× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.52× |
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% |
WINA
Segment breakdown not available.
