vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Orange County Bancorp, Inc. (OBT) and SolarMax Technology, Inc. (SMXT). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
SolarMax Technology, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($46.6M vs $33.0M, roughly 1.4× Orange County Bancorp, Inc.). Orange County Bancorp, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 37.6% vs -1.9%, a 39.5% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, SolarMax Technology, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (623.5% vs 20.6%).
Orange County Bancorp, Inc. is a Delaware-registered bank holding company operating mainly in New York, U.S. It offers a full range of retail and commercial banking services, including deposit accounts, loans and wealth management solutions, serving individual consumers, small and mid-sized corporate clients in its regional footprint.
SolarMax Technology, Inc. develops, manufactures and sells high-efficiency solar PV modules and clean energy systems. It serves residential, commercial and industrial clients in North America and key Asia-Pacific markets, offering installation and after-sales support to boost low-carbon energy use.
OBT vs SMXT — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $33.0M | $46.6M |
| Net Profit | $12.4M | $-872.2K |
| Gross Margin | — | 2.7% |
| Operating Margin | 41.4% | -2.7% |
| Net Margin | 37.6% | -1.9% |
| Revenue YoY | 20.6% | 623.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | 73.5% | 77.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.94 | $-0.02 |
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 | $33.0M | $46.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $33.7M | $30.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $32.5M | $6.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $28.0M | $6.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $27.4M | $6.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $27.1M | $6.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $27.9M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $25.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | $12.4M | $-872.2K | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.0M | $-2.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.5M | $-1.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.7M | $-1.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.2M | $-3.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.2M | $-9.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 2.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 3.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 8.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 20.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 14.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 19.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | 41.4% | -2.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 38.6% | -6.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 41.9% | -25.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 40.3% | -16.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 32.8% | -27.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 14.8% | -158.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 36.6% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 45.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | 37.6% | -1.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 29.7% | -7.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 32.2% | -27.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 31.1% | -18.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 26.2% | -60.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.8% | -152.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 29.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 36.7% | — |
| Q4 25 | $0.94 | $-0.02 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.75 | $-0.04 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.87 | $-0.04 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.77 | $-0.03 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.64 | $-0.07 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.28 | $-0.21 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.73 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.82 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | — | $8.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $284.4M | $-12.2M |
| Total Assets | $2.7B | $91.3M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $8.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $5.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $6.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $7.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $8.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $284.4M | $-12.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $270.1M | $-11.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $252.6M | $-15.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $201.3M | $-15.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $185.5M | $-15.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $193.1M | $-10.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $177.5M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $168.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | $2.7B | $91.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.6B | $58.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.6B | $38.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.6B | $38.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.5B | $38.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.5B | $43.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.5B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.5B | — |
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 | $43.8M | $-2.5M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $41.3M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 125.1% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 7.6% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 3.53× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $69.6M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $43.8M | $-2.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $30.2M | $3.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-5.0M | $220.7K | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.8M | $-601.1K | ||
| Q4 24 | $34.6M | $-1.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.2M | $203.6K | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.3M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | $41.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $29.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-5.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $32.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | 125.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 87.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -17.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 15.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 120.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 36.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 32.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | 7.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.8% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.1% | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | 3.53× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.01× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.47× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.56× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.83× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.19× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.13× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.24× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
OBT
Segment breakdown not available.
SMXT
| Yabucoa | $35.9M | 77% |
| Other | $10.7M | 23% |
