vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Namib Minerals (NAMM) and PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC. (PBYI). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($75.5M vs $41.9M, roughly 1.8× Namib Minerals). PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($14.4M vs $7.4M).
Namib Minerals is a Namibia-based natural resources firm focused on exploration, development and extraction of high-demand mineral deposits including uranium, copper and lithium. It operates across licensed southern African sites, supplying raw materials to global clean energy, construction and electronics manufacturing sectors.
Puma Biotechnology is a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Los Angeles, CA.
NAMM vs PBYI — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $41.9M | $75.5M |
| Net Profit | — | — |
| Gross Margin | 45.7% | 69.3% |
| Operating Margin | 29.8% | 22.7% |
| Net Margin | — | — |
| Revenue YoY | — | 27.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | — |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $0.26 |
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 | — | $75.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $54.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $41.9M | $52.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $46.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $59.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $80.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $47.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $43.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $8.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $5.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $20.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-4.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-4.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | 69.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 77.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 45.7% | 76.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 77.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 76.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 63.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 77.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 75.5% |
| Q4 25 | — | 22.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 17.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 29.8% | 12.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 8.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 22.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 27.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -4.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -5.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 16.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 11.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 6.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 25.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -9.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -11.0% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.26 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.17 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.12 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.06 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.40 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.41 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-0.09 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-0.10 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | — | $97.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $22.7M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | — | $130.3M |
| Total Assets | — | $216.3M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.17× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $97.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $94.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $96.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $93.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $101.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $96.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $96.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $107.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | $22.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $34.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $45.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $56.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $68.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $79.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $90.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $102.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | $130.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $115.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $104.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $97.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $92.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $71.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $48.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $51.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | $216.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $202.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $194.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $196.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $213.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $220.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $205.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $214.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.17× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.30× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.43× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.58× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.74× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.12× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.87× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 2.00× |
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 | $11.4M | $14.4M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $7.4M | $14.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 17.6% | 19.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 9.6% | 0.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $41.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $14.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $9.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.4M | $14.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $15.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $11.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $11.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | $14.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $9.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.4M | $14.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $15.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $11.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 19.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 17.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.6% | 26.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 7.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 26.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 13.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 2.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.6% | 0.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.0% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.10× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.41× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.21× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.54× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
