vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of MOVING iMAGE TECHNOLOGIES INC. (MITQ) and Texas Community Bancshares, Inc. (TCBS). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Texas Community Bancshares, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($4.4M vs $3.8M, roughly 1.2× MOVING iMAGE TECHNOLOGIES INC.). Texas Community Bancshares, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 18.9% vs -10.2%, a 29.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Texas Community Bancshares, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (10.8% vs 10.2%). Over the past eight quarters, Texas Community Bancshares, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (22.5% CAGR vs 7.8%).
Silicon Image Inc. was an American fabless semiconductor company based in Hillsboro, Oregon, and active from 1995 to 2015. The company designed circuits for mobile phones, consumer electronics and personal computers (PCs). It also manufactured wireless and wired connectivity products used for high-definition content. The company's semiconductor and IP products were deployed by manufacturers in devices such as smartphones, tablets, digital televisions (DTVs), and other consumer electronics, as...
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is an American bank holding company headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Its banking subsidiary, The Huntington National Bank, operates 1,047 banking offices, primarily in the Midwest: 459 in Ohio, 290 in Michigan, 80 in Minnesota, 51 in Pennsylvania, 45 in Indiana, 35 in Illinois, 32 in Colorado, 29 in West Virginia, 16 in Wisconsin, 10 in Kentucky, and one in North Carolina.
MITQ vs TCBS — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $3.8M | $4.4M |
| Net Profit | $-388.0K | $841.0K |
| Gross Margin | 30.7% | — |
| Operating Margin | -10.8% | 23.1% |
| Net Margin | -10.2% | 18.9% |
| Revenue YoY | 10.2% | 10.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | 26.4% | 62.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.04 | $0.31 |
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 | $3.8M | $4.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.6M | $4.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $3.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.6M | $3.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.4M | $3.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.3M | $3.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.3M | $3.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.9M | $3.0M |
| Q4 25 | $-388.0K | $841.0K | ||
| Q3 25 | $509.0K | $680.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $678.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $-240.0K | $643.0K | ||
| Q4 24 | $-527.0K | $517.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | $-25.0K | $515.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | $-416.0K | $348.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $-601.0K | $-2.7M |
| Q4 25 | 30.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 30.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 29.8% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 27.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 26.1% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 22.5% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 17.4% | — |
| Q4 25 | -10.8% | 23.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.3% | 17.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 21.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -7.6% | 19.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | -16.3% | 19.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | -1.3% | 16.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | -7.3% | 11.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | -16.7% | -114.5% |
| Q4 25 | -10.2% | 18.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.1% | 15.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 18.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | -6.7% | 17.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | -15.3% | 16.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -0.5% | 13.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | -6.6% | 9.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | -15.4% | -90.6% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.04 | $0.31 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.05 | $0.24 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.23 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.02 | $0.22 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.05 | $0.16 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.00 | $0.17 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.04 | $0.12 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.06 | $-0.89 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | — | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $5.0M | $53.8M |
| Total Assets | $9.5M | $429.8M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $5.0M | $53.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.4M | $53.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $52.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.0M | $52.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.2M | $52.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.7M | $52.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.7M | $51.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.3M | $51.5M |
| Q4 25 | $9.5M | $429.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.3M | $439.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $444.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.2M | $442.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.0M | $443.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.7M | $446.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.5M | $451.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $12.7M | $463.8M |
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 | $-1.6M | $1.4M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $973.0K |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 21.9% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 8.9% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 1.63× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $1.8M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $-1.6M | $1.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-167.0K | $1.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $53.0K | $-1.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $70.0K | $1.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-32.0K | $816.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | $-472.0K | $404.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.0M | $641.0K |
| Q4 25 | — | $973.0K | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $822.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-1.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $740.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $805.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $209.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-345.0K |
| Q4 25 | — | 21.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 35.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 21.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -41.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 23.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 21.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 5.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -11.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | 8.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 4.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 37.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.0% | 5.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.63× | ||
| Q3 25 | -0.33× | 2.34× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.49× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -2.38× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 3.75× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.58× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.16× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
