vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Metalpha Technology Holding Ltd (MATH) and PURE CYCLE CORP (PCYO). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Metalpha Technology Holding Ltd is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($12.0M vs $9.1M, roughly 1.3× PURE CYCLE CORP). PURE CYCLE CORP runs the higher net margin — 50.0% vs -24.0%, a 74.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, PURE CYCLE CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (58.8% vs -39.0%).
Metalpha Technology Holding LtdMATHEarnings & Financial Report
Metalpha Technology Holding Ltd is a global fintech firm specializing in digital asset wealth management, institutional-grade crypto investment services, and Web3 ecosystem infrastructure support. It serves professional investors, financial institutions, and high-net-worth clients across Asia, North America and Europe, with core segments including structured digital asset products, risk management solutions and DeFi technology development.
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.
MATH vs PCYO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $12.0M | $9.1M |
| Net Profit | $-2.9M | $4.6M |
| Gross Margin | 28.3% | 68.4% |
| Operating Margin | -24.2% | 48.0% |
| Net Margin | -24.0% | 50.0% |
| Revenue YoY | -39.0% | 58.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | -147.7% | 16.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.07 | $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 | — | $9.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $12.0M | $11.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $5.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $24.8M | $4.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $5.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $19.7M | $12.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $7.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $3.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | $4.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.9M | $6.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.8M | $809.0K | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $3.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.0M | $6.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $118.0K |
| Q4 25 | — | 68.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 28.3% | 67.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 63.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 85.7% | 38.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 63.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 49.5% | 77.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 64.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 55.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | 48.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | -24.2% | 53.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 26.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 39.3% | -33.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 29.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 38.9% | 62.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 40.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -11.5% |
| Q4 25 | — | 50.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | -24.0% | 54.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 43.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 39.6% | 20.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 68.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 30.7% | 52.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 37.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 3.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.19 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.07 | $0.26 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.09 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.25 | $0.03 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.16 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.16 | $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 | $10.1M | $17.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $101.2K | $8.0M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $35.1M | $147.5M |
| Total Assets | $413.8M | $168.1M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.00× | 0.05× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $17.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.1M | $21.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $14.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.9M | $16.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $19.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.8M | $22.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $20.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $20.6M |
| Q4 25 | — | $8.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $101.2K | $6.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $6.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $188.0K | $6.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $6.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $275.1K | $6.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $147.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $35.1M | $142.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $136.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $36.6M | $134.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $133.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $25.3M | $129.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $123.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $120.4M |
| Q4 25 | — | $168.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $413.8M | $162.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $151.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $246.8M | $149.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $149.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $237.2M | $147.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $140.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $135.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.05× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.00× | 0.05× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.05× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.01× | 0.05× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.05× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.01× | 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 | $3.3M | $-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 | — | $-979.0K | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3M | $9.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-503.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $16.2M | $-1.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $5.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-16.1M | $3.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $892.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-457.0K |
| Q4 25 | — | -0.21× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.53× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -0.22× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.64× | -1.70× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.44× | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.66× | 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
MATH
Segment breakdown not available.
PCYO
| Construction | $6.5M | 71% |
| Water And Wastewater Resource Development Segment | $2.5M | 27% |
