vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of MERCURY SYSTEMS INC (MRCY) and GeneDx Holdings Corp. (WGS). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
MERCURY SYSTEMS INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($235.8M vs $121.0M, roughly 1.9× GeneDx Holdings Corp.). MERCURY SYSTEMS INC runs the higher net margin — -1.2% vs -14.6%, a 13.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, GeneDx Holdings Corp. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (26.5% vs 11.5%). MERCURY SYSTEMS INC produced more free cash flow last quarter ($-1.8M vs $-7.4M). Over the past eight quarters, GeneDx Holdings Corp.'s revenue compounded faster (39.2% CAGR vs -2.6%).
Mercury Systems, Inc. is a technology company serving the aerospace and defense industry. It designs, develops and manufactures open architecture computer hardware and software products, including secure embedded processing modules and subsystems, avionics mission computers and displays, rugged secure computer servers, and trusted microelectronics components, modules and subsystems.
GeneDx is a genetic testing company that was founded in 2000 by two scientists from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Sherri Bale and John Compton. They started the company to provide clinical diagnostic services for patients and families with rare and ultra-rare disorders, for which no such commercial testing was available at the time. The company started in the Technology Development Center, a biotech incubator supported by the state of Maryland and Montgomery County, MD. In 2006, Bi...
MRCY vs WGS — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2026 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $235.8M | $121.0M |
| Net Profit | $-2.9M | $-17.7M |
| Gross Margin | 99.6% | 69.6% |
| Operating Margin | 72.9% | -11.8% |
| Net Margin | -1.2% | -14.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 11.5% | 26.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | -424.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.04 | $-0.59 |
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 | $235.8M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $232.9M | $121.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $225.2M | $116.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $273.1M | $102.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $211.4M | $87.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $223.1M | $95.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $204.4M | $76.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $248.6M | $70.5M |
| Q1 26 | $-2.9M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-15.1M | $-17.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-12.5M | $-7.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $16.4M | $10.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-19.2M | $-6.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-17.6M | $5.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-17.5M | $-8.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-10.8M | $-29.2M |
| Q1 26 | 99.6% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 26.0% | 69.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 27.9% | 72.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 31.0% | 69.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 27.0% | 67.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 27.3% | 69.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 25.3% | 62.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 29.5% | 60.9% |
| Q1 26 | 72.9% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -4.6% | -11.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | -3.8% | -2.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.6% | 8.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | -8.2% | -5.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | -5.6% | 9.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -6.6% | -10.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | -3.2% | -15.0% |
| Q1 26 | -1.2% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -6.5% | -14.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | -5.6% | -6.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.0% | 10.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -9.1% | -7.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | -7.9% | 5.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | -8.6% | -10.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | -4.3% | -41.4% |
| Q1 26 | $-0.04 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-0.26 | $-0.59 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.21 | $-0.27 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.28 | $0.36 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.33 | $-0.23 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.30 | $0.25 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.30 | $-0.31 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.18 | $-1.10 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $331.8M | $171.3M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $591.5M | $54.5M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.5B | $308.2M |
| Total Assets | $2.5B | $523.7M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.40× | 0.18× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $331.8M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $335.0M | $171.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $304.7M | $155.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $309.1M | $134.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $269.8M | $159.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $242.6M | $141.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $158.1M | $116.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $180.5M | $106.9M |
| Q1 26 | $591.5M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $54.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $54.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $55.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $55.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $55.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $56.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $56.3M |
| Q1 26 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.5B | $308.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.5B | $292.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.5B | $277.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.5B | $257.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.5B | $245.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.5B | $204.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.5B | $194.0M |
| Q1 26 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.5B | $523.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.5B | $493.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.4B | $463.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.4B | $446.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.4B | $419.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.4B | $408.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.4B | $389.1M |
| Q1 26 | 0.40× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.18× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.19× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.20× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.22× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.23× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.27× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.29× |
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 | $6.4M | $-3.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-1.8M | $-7.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -0.8% | -6.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 3.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $73.5M | $14.3M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $6.4M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $51.6M | $-3.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.2M | $15.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $38.1M | $10.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $30.0M | $10.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $85.5M | $-3.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-14.7M | $-4.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $71.8M | $-4.5M |
| Q1 26 | $-1.8M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $45.7M | $-7.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-4.4M | $9.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $34.0M | $8.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $24.1M | $4.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $81.9M | $-6.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-20.9M | $-5.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $61.4M | $-5.9M |
| Q1 26 | -0.8% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 19.6% | -6.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | -1.9% | 8.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 12.4% | 7.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.4% | 4.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 36.7% | -6.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | -10.2% | -6.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 24.7% | -8.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 2.5% | 3.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.9% | 5.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.5% | 2.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.8% | 7.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.6% | 3.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.1% | 0.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.2% | 1.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.33× | 0.96× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -0.59× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
MRCY
Segment breakdown not available.
WGS
| Diagnostic Test Third Party Insurance | $101.1M | 84% |
| Diagnostic Test Institutional Customers | $15.5M | 13% |
| Other | $3.4M | 3% |
