vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Functional Brands Inc. (MEHA) and ReTo Eco-Solutions, Inc. (RETO). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Functional Brands Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.7M vs $1.0M, roughly 1.6× ReTo Eco-Solutions, Inc.). Functional Brands Inc. runs the higher net margin — 15.3% vs -131.6%, a 146.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. Functional Brands Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($1.5M vs $-1.7M).
Fortune Brands Innovations, Inc. is an American manufacturer of home and security products, headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois. Its portfolio of businesses and brands includes Moen and the House of Rohl; outdoor living and security products from Therma-Tru, Larson, Fiberon, Master Lock and SentrySafe; and MasterBrand Cabinets. Fortune Brands is a Fortune 500 company and part of the S&P 400 Index. As of December 31, 2021, the company reported employing approximately 28,000 associates and pos...
ReTo Eco-Solutions, Inc. develops and supplies eco-friendly construction materials, environmental remediation services, and solid waste treatment solutions. Its core offerings include recycled construction aggregates, soil improvement products, and ecological restoration systems, primarily serving infrastructure, real estate, and environmental conservation sectors across the Chinese market.
MEHA vs RETO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q2 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.7M | $1.0M |
| Net Profit | $259.0K | $-1.4M |
| Gross Margin | 57.7% | 17.7% |
| Operating Margin | -4.6% | -133.0% |
| Net Margin | 15.3% | -131.6% |
| Revenue YoY | — | 36.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | -103.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.04 | — |
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.
| Q3 25 | $1.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $768.4K | ||
| Q2 22 | — | $2.9M |
| Q3 25 | $259.0K | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-1.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-678.5K | ||
| Q2 22 | — | $-5.7M |
| Q3 25 | 57.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 17.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 43.3% | ||
| Q2 22 | — | 13.0% |
| Q3 25 | -4.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -133.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -68.0% | ||
| Q2 22 | — | -195.8% |
| Q3 25 | 15.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -131.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -88.3% | ||
| Q2 22 | — | -196.4% |
| Q3 25 | $0.04 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-0.25 | ||
| Q2 22 | — | $-0.16 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $1.0M | $2.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $141.3K | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $604.7K | $30.4M |
| Total Assets | $8.2M | $41.4M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.23× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | $1.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.6M | ||
| Q2 22 | — | $832.4K |
| Q3 25 | $141.3K | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | $604.7K | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $30.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $13.3M | ||
| Q2 22 | — | $13.5M |
| Q3 25 | $8.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $41.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $33.7M | ||
| Q2 22 | — | $33.9M |
| Q3 25 | 0.23× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
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 | $1.5M | $-1.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $1.5M | $-1.7M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 86.8% | -157.4% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.5% | 5.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 5.71× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | $1.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-1.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-4.8M | ||
| Q2 22 | — | $-9.3M |
| Q3 25 | $1.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-1.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | 86.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -157.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | 0.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 5.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | 5.71× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
