vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Namib Minerals (NAMM) and Twin Hospitality Group Inc. (TWNP). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Twin Hospitality Group Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($82.3M vs $41.9M, roughly 2.0× Namib Minerals). Namib Minerals produced more free cash flow last quarter ($7.4M 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.
Target Hospitality is a company that provides workforce lodging and other temporary, modular housing used for oil, gas and mining operations; large-scale events; and disaster relief. Target Hospitality is based in The Woodlands, Texas, and also has offices in Williston, North Dakota; Denver, Colorado; Calgary, Alberta.
NAMM vs TWNP — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $41.9M | $82.3M |
| Net Profit | — | $-24.5M |
| Gross Margin | 45.7% | — |
| Operating Margin | 29.8% | -16.2% |
| Net Margin | — | -29.7% |
| Revenue YoY | — | — |
| Net Profit YoY | — | — |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $-0.43 |
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.
| Q3 25 | — | $82.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $41.9M | $87.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $87.1M |
| Q3 25 | — | $-24.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-20.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-12.1M |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 45.7% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | — | -16.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 29.8% | -13.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -1.2% |
| Q3 25 | — | -29.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -23.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -13.9% |
| Q3 25 | — | $-0.43 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-0.38 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-0.26 |
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 | — | $402.8M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | — | $-92.1M |
| Total Assets | — | $516.8M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | — | $402.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $411.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $413.0M |
| Q3 25 | — | $-92.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-78.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-101.9M |
| Q3 25 | — | $516.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $535.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $544.2M |
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 | $-5.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $7.4M | $-7.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 17.6% | -9.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 9.6% | 1.9% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | — | $-5.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.4M | $-8.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-5.7M |
| Q3 25 | — | $-7.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.4M | $-10.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-9.7M |
| Q3 25 | — | -9.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.6% | -12.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -11.2% |
| Q3 25 | — | 1.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.6% | 2.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 4.6% |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
