vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Nine Energy Service, Inc. (NINE) and SEMPRA (SREA), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
SEMPRA is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($3.3B vs $132.2M, roughly 24.8× Nine Energy Service, Inc.). SEMPRA runs the higher net margin — -14.5% vs 10.7%, a 25.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, SEMPRA posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (6.9% vs -6.5%). Nine Energy Service, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($-4.8M vs $-2.2B). Over the past eight quarters, Nine Energy Service, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (-3.6% CAGR vs -5.8%).
Xcel Energy Inc. is a U.S. regulated electric utility and natural gas delivery company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, serving approximately 3.9 million electricity customers and 2.2 million natural gas customers across parts of eight states as of mid-2025. It consists of four operating subsidiaries: Northern States Power-Minnesota, Northern States Power-Wisconsin, Public Service Company of Colorado, and Southwestern Public Service Co.
Sempra is a North American public utility holding company based in San Diego, California. The company is one of the largest utility holding companies in the United States with nearly 40 million consumers. Sempra's focus is on electric and natural gas infrastructure and its operating companies include: Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDGE) in Southern California; Oncor Electric Delivery Company in Texas; and Sempra Infrastructure, with offices in Califo...
NINE vs SREA — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $132.2M | $3.3B |
| Net Profit | $-19.2M | $352.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -4.2% | 7.2% |
| Net Margin | -14.5% | 10.7% |
| Revenue YoY | -6.5% | 6.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | -117.4% | -47.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.47 | $0.53 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $132.2M | $3.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $132.0M | $2.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $147.3M | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $150.5M | $3.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $141.4M | $3.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $138.2M | $2.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $132.4M | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $142.1M | $3.7B |
| Q4 25 | $-19.2M | $352.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-14.6M | $95.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-10.4M | $473.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-7.1M | $917.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-8.8M | $676.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-10.1M | $649.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-14.0M | $725.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-8.1M | $812.0M |
| Q4 25 | -4.2% | 7.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | -0.9% | 10.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.3% | 17.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.7% | 21.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.5% | 35.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.8% | 12.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -1.1% | 18.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.1% | 22.7% |
| Q4 25 | -14.5% | 10.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | -11.1% | 3.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -7.1% | 17.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -4.7% | 24.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | -6.3% | 22.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | -7.3% | 25.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -10.6% | 29.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | -5.7% | 22.0% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.47 | $0.53 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.35 | $0.12 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.25 | $0.71 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.18 | $1.39 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.21 | $1.04 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.26 | $1.00 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.40 | $1.12 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.24 | $1.26 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $18.4M | $29.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $29.0B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $-115.0M | $31.6B |
| Total Assets | $339.5M | $110.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.92× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $18.4M | $29.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $14.4M | $5.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $14.2M | $155.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.3M | $1.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $27.9M | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $15.7M | $560.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $26.0M | $228.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.2M | $606.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | $29.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $29.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $34.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $33.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $31.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $31.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $29.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $29.5B |
| Q4 25 | $-115.0M | $31.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $-95.9M | $31.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $-81.7M | $31.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $-72.1M | $31.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $-66.1M | $31.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $-57.6M | $29.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $-49.7M | $29.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $-43.3M | $29.1B |
| Q4 25 | $339.5M | $110.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $340.7M | $106.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $361.2M | $99.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $359.2M | $99.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $360.1M | $96.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $353.2M | $93.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $381.7M | $90.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $380.4M | $89.6B |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.92× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.93× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.10× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.05× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.01× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.04× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.98× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.01× |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $-2.2M | $1.2B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-4.8M | $-2.2B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -3.6% | -67.7% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.0% | 104.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 3.38× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-23.3M | $-6.0B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $-2.2M | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $-9.9M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.1M | $784.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-5.3M | $1.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $15.0M | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $-5.8M | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $12.9M | $669.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-8.8M | $1.9B |
| Q4 25 | $-4.8M | $-2.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $-13.4M | $-1.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.2M | $-1.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $-9.3M | $-854.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $11.8M | $-1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $-9.3M | $-913.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.3M | $-1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $-14.3M | $-82.0M |
| Q4 25 | -3.6% | -67.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | -10.2% | -52.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.9% | -56.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | -6.2% | -23.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.3% | -35.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | -6.7% | -35.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.7% | -49.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | -10.1% | -2.2% |
| Q4 25 | 2.0% | 104.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.6% | 92.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.0% | 85.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.6% | 63.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.3% | 79.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.5% | 75.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.0% | 76.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.9% | 52.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | 3.38× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 11.68× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.66× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.62× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2.02× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.57× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.92× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 2.28× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
NINE
| Cement | $52.6M | 40% |
| Tool Revenue | $28.6M | 22% |
| Coiled Tubing | $25.8M | 20% |
| Wireline | $25.1M | 19% |
SREA
| Equity Method Investment Nonconsolidated Investee Or Group Of Investees | $1.7B | 53% |
| Reportable Segment | $1.1B | 32% |
| Sempra Infrastructure | $277.0M | 8% |
| Electric Non Nuclear | $124.0M | 4% |
| Natural Gas Reserves | $67.0M | 2% |
| Related Party | $8.0M | 0% |
