vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of MITEK SYSTEMS INC (MITK) and UNITED STATES LIME & MINERALS INC (USLM). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
UNITED STATES LIME & MINERALS INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($87.9M vs $44.2M, roughly 2.0× MITEK SYSTEMS INC). UNITED STATES LIME & MINERALS INC runs the higher net margin — 34.7% vs 6.3%, a 28.5% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, MITEK SYSTEMS INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (18.8% vs 9.8%). UNITED STATES LIME & MINERALS INC produced more free cash flow last quarter ($25.7M vs $6.6M). Over the past eight quarters, UNITED STATES LIME & MINERALS INC's revenue compounded faster (10.8% CAGR vs -2.9%).
Mitek Systems, Inc. is a software company that specializes in digital identity verification and mobile image processing using artificial intelligence. The company's software is used for depositing checks and opening bank accounts via mobile devices. It also verifies identity documents such as passports, ID cards, and driver's licenses by analyzing a selfie of an individual holding their ID, comparing their face to the photo on the document.
United States Lime & Minerals Inc is a leading US-based natural resources enterprise that produces high-calcium lime, dolomitic lime, limestone and related mineral products. Its core client segments cover infrastructure construction, steel manufacturing, agricultural soil amendment, environmental emission control and industrial processing, serving customers across North America.
MITK vs USLM — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $44.2M | $87.9M |
| Net Profit | $2.8M | $30.5M |
| Gross Margin | — | 48.0% |
| Operating Margin | 12.3% | 41.0% |
| Net Margin | 6.3% | 34.7% |
| Revenue YoY | 18.8% | 9.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | 160.1% | 13.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.06 | $1.06 |
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 | $44.2M | $87.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $44.8M | $102.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $45.7M | $91.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $51.9M | $91.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $37.3M | $80.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $43.2M | $89.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $45.0M | $76.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $47.0M | $71.7M |
| Q4 25 | $2.8M | $30.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.9M | $38.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.4M | $30.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.2M | $34.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-4.6M | $27.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.6M | $33.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $216.0K | $26.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $282.0K | $22.4M |
| Q4 25 | — | 48.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 51.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 45.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 50.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 44.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 48.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 45.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 42.7% |
| Q4 25 | 12.3% | 41.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 10.5% | 45.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.3% | 39.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 21.9% | 43.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | -8.3% | 38.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 17.8% | 42.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.6% | 39.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.5% | 35.9% |
| Q4 25 | 6.3% | 34.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.2% | 38.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.2% | 33.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 17.6% | 37.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | -12.4% | 33.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.8% | 37.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.5% | 34.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.6% | 31.3% |
| Q4 25 | $0.06 | $1.06 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.04 | $1.35 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.05 | $1.07 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.20 | $1.19 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.10 | $-2.20 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.19 | $1.16 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.00 | $0.91 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.01 | $3.92 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $190.1M | $371.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $4.8M | $0 |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $233.7M | $630.8M |
| Total Assets | $446.5M | $681.0M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.02× | 0.00× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $190.1M | $371.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $193.0M | $349.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $167.1M | $319.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $136.2M | $300.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $121.2M | $278.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $130.3M | $255.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $123.1M | $222.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $123.9M | $207.0M |
| Q4 25 | $4.8M | $0 | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.3M | $0 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.7M | $0 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $0 |
| Q4 25 | $233.7M | $630.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $240.3M | $602.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $237.6M | $563.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $220.2M | $532.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $200.9M | $497.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $214.8M | $474.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $209.6M | $441.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $216.1M | $415.3M |
| Q4 25 | $446.5M | $681.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $459.1M | $652.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $446.7M | $607.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $425.3M | $585.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $396.0M | $543.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $413.8M | $521.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $409.2M | $484.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $417.0M | $464.0M |
| Q4 25 | 0.02× | 0.00× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.02× | 0.00× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.00× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.00× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.00× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.01× | 0.00× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.00× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.00× |
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 | $8.0M | $45.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $6.6M | $25.7M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 14.9% | 29.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 3.2% | 22.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 2.89× | 1.49× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $60.5M | $102.3M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $8.0M | $45.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $19.5M | $45.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $21.6M | $34.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.7M | $39.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $565.0K | $38.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $21.1M | $39.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $13.0M | $21.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.1M | $27.2M |
| Q4 25 | $6.6M | $25.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $19.2M | $31.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $21.2M | $20.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.5M | $24.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $230.0K | $27.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $20.8M | $33.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.6M | $16.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.6M | $20.3M |
| Q4 25 | 14.9% | 29.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 42.9% | 30.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 46.5% | 22.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 26.0% | 26.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.6% | 34.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 48.2% | 37.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 27.9% | 21.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 14.0% | 28.4% |
| Q4 25 | 3.2% | 22.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.6% | 14.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.7% | 14.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.4% | 16.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.9% | 13.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.7% | 5.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.0% | 5.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.0% | 9.5% |
| Q4 25 | 2.89× | 1.49× | ||
| Q3 25 | 10.46× | 1.18× | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.00× | 1.10× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.50× | 1.16× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.43× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.46× | 1.17× | ||
| Q2 24 | 60.12× | 0.81× | ||
| Q1 24 | 25.05× | 1.21× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
MITK
| Fraud And Identity Solutions | $25.5M | 58% |
| License | $13.9M | 31% |
| Fraud And Identity Solutions Software License And Support | $3.9M | 9% |
| Professional Services And Other | $1.2M | 3% |
USLM
Segment breakdown not available.
