vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. (OPTT) and ATIF Holdings Ltd (ZBAI). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($424.0K vs $250.0K, roughly 1.7× ATIF Holdings Ltd). ATIF Holdings Ltd runs the higher net margin — -635.6% vs -2553.1%, a 1917.5% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, ATIF Holdings Ltd posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (25.0% vs -82.5%). Over the past eight quarters, ATIF Holdings Ltd's revenue compounded faster (-8.7% CAGR vs -51.4%).
Ocean Power Technologies (OPT) is a U.S. publicly owned renewable energy company, providing electric power and communications solutions, services and related for remote offshore applications. The company's PowerBuoy wave energy conversion technology is theoretically scalable to hundreds of megawatts and the generated energy from wave power can be supplied to the grid via submarine cables. Several projects were undertaken around the world, but the economic viability of the theoretical concept ...
ATIF Holdings Ltd is a professional business advisory service provider that mainly serves small and medium-sized enterprises across the Asia-Pacific region. It offers corporate strategic consulting, fundraising guidance, cross-border expansion support, and industry resource matching services for clients in technology, consumer goods, manufacturing and other key sectors.
OPTT vs ZBAI — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2026 vs Q3 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $424.0K | $250.0K |
| Net Profit | $-10.8M | $-1.6M |
| Gross Margin | -325.5% | — |
| Operating Margin | -2387.5% | -75.6% |
| Net Margin | -2553.1% | -635.6% |
| Revenue YoY | -82.5% | 25.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | -176.6% | -96.8% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.06 | $-0.09 |
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 | $424.0K | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3M | $250.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $825.0K | $200.0K | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.3M | $270.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6M | $200.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.8M | $25.0K |
| Q4 25 | $-10.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-7.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-6.4M | $-1.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-6.7M | $-1.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-3.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-4.5M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-6.7M | $-807.6K | ||
| Q1 24 | $-6.5M | $-407.6K |
| Q4 25 | -325.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -1.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 16.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 23.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 32.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 34.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 54.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 45.4% | — |
| Q4 25 | -2387.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -598.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -563.6% | -75.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | -712.1% | -175.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | -161.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -343.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -430.3% | -260.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | -430.0% | -2190.1% |
| Q4 25 | -2553.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -625.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -487.9% | -635.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | -814.5% | -951.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | -161.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -342.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -427.6% | -403.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | -363.2% | -1630.6% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.06 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.04 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.04 | $-0.09 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.04 | $-0.16 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.04 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.05 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.12 | $-0.08 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.11 | $-0.04 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $11.7M | $7.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $22.3M | $8.4M |
| Total Assets | $39.3M | $8.7M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $11.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $9.9M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.7M | $7.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.0M | $8.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.2M | $1.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.2M | $2.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.1M | $139.2K |
| Q4 25 | $22.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $24.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $26.7M | $8.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $28.9M | $7.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $22.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $22.3M | $1.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $19.3M | $3.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $25.3M | $506.3K |
| Q4 25 | $39.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $36.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $30.8M | $8.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $34.4M | $8.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $26.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $29.2M | $3.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $28.7M | $3.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $34.6M | $2.5M |
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 | $-7.5M | $-939.0K |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-7.8M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -1838.9% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 62.7% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-23.0M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $-7.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-5.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-4.0M | $-939.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $-3.7M | $-395.1K | ||
| Q4 24 | $-4.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-6.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-5.1M | $-62.6K | ||
| Q1 24 | $-9.2M | $-212.8K |
| Q4 25 | $-7.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-7.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-4.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-4.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-5.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-6.5M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-6.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-9.7M | $-213.5K |
| Q4 25 | -1838.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -597.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -315.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -480.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -207.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -499.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -408.0% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -543.6% | -854.1% |
| Q4 25 | 62.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 122.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 26.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 10.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 28.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 86.6% | 0.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 29.4% | 3.0% |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
