vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of MP Materials Corp. (MP) and UP Fintech Holding Ltd (TIGR). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
UP Fintech Holding Ltd is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($107.6M vs $90.6M, roughly 1.2× MP Materials Corp.). UP Fintech Holding Ltd runs the higher net margin — 28.4% vs -8.8%, a 37.2% gap on every dollar of revenue.
MP Materials Corp. is a U.S.-based producer of rare earth materials. The company owns and operates the Mountain Pass mine in California, the only active rare earth mining and processing facility in the Western Hemisphere, producing essential materials for electric vehicles, wind turbines, and defense applications.
UP Fintech Holding Limited, operating under the Tiger Brokers brand, provides online financial services for global Chinese investors. It offers cross-market stock trading (US, Hong Kong, mainland China A-shares), fund management, margin financing and investor education for retail and institutional clients.
MP vs TIGR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2026 vs Q1 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $90.6M | $107.6M |
| Net Profit | $-8.0M | $30.6M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | — | — |
| Net Margin | -8.8% | 28.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 49.1% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | 64.8% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.04 | $0.01 |
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.
| Q1 26 | $90.6M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $52.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $53.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $57.4M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $60.8M | $107.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $61.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $62.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $31.3M | $166.4M |
| Q1 26 | $-8.0M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $9.4M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-41.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-30.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-22.6M | $30.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-22.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-25.5M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-34.1M | $15.2M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -7.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -125.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -76.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -57.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -72.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -62.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -171.1% | 14.0% |
| Q1 26 | -8.8% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 17.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -78.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -53.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -37.2% | 28.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | -36.6% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -40.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -108.9% | 9.1% |
| Q1 26 | $-0.04 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.07 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.24 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.19 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.14 | $0.01 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.12 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.16 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.21 | $0.01 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $1.7B | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $1.0B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.0B | — |
| Total Assets | $3.8B | — |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.51× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $1.7B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $261.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $198.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $282.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $284.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $295.6M | $392.5M |
| Q1 26 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $998.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $997.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $910.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $909.8M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $908.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | $2.0B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.0B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.0B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $501.2M |
| Q1 26 | $3.8B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.9B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.8B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.3B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.4B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.3B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.3B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.4B | $4.8B |
| Q1 26 | 0.51× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.50× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.51× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.90× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.88× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.86× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 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 | $-1.9M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $-1.9M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-46.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-42.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-3.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-63.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $30.5M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-6.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $30.8M | $155.1M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-109.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-92.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-32.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-93.7M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-11.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-53.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-15.6M | $153.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -207.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -172.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -56.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -154.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -18.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -84.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -50.1% | 92.4% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 118.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 94.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 50.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 50.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 68.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 73.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 148.7% | 0.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -4.97× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 10.20× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
MP
| Materials Segment | $72.2M | 80% |
| Magnetics Segment | $21.1M | 23% |
TIGR
Segment breakdown not available.
