vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of ONE STOP SYSTEMS, INC. (OSS) and Rafael Holdings, Inc. (RFL), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
ONE STOP SYSTEMS, INC. runs the higher net margin — -68.7% vs -4090.0%, a 4021.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Rafael Holdings, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (87.5% vs 13.9%). Over the past eight quarters, Rafael Holdings, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (85.2% CAGR vs NaN%).
Elbit Systems Ltd. is an Israel-based international military technology company and defense contractor. Founded in 1966 by Elron, Elbit Systems is the primary provider of the Israeli military's land-based equipment and unmanned aerial vehicles. It is an important company within the defense industry of Israel.
Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. is an Israeli defense technology company. It was founded as Israel's National R&D Defense Laboratory for the development of weapons and military technology within the Israeli Ministry of Defense; in 2002 it was incorporated as a limited company.
OSS vs RFL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q1 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $-12.9M | $240.0K |
| Net Profit | $8.9M | $-9.8M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | — | -4225.4% |
| Net Margin | -68.7% | -4090.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 13.9% | 87.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | 382.7% | -9.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.39 | $-0.19 |
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 | $-12.9M | $240.0K | ||
| Q3 25 | $18.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $14.1M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $12.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-15.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $13.7M | $165.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | $13.2M | $336.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $12.7M | $68.0K |
| Q4 25 | $8.9M | $-9.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $263.5K | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-2.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-3.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-6.8M | $-4.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-2.3M | $-32.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.3M | $6.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 35.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 31.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 32.6% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -12.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 25.2% | 74.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 29.4% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | -4225.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -12.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -15.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -49.1% | -2330.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -17.1% | -27726.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | -10.0% | -4622.1% |
| Q4 25 | -68.7% | -4090.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -14.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -16.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 20.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -49.7% | -2707.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -17.8% | -9628.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | -10.6% | 8892.6% |
| Q4 25 | $0.39 | $-0.19 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.01 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.09 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.09 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.16 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.32 | $-0.19 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.11 | $-1.36 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.06 | $0.25 |
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 | $31.2M | $45.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $46.0M | $85.2M |
| Total Assets | $52.8M | $105.4M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $31.2M | $45.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.5M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $12.6M | $2.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $11.8M | $7.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $12.9M | $7.1M |
| Q4 25 | $46.0M | $85.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $26.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $26.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $26.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $27.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $30.6M | $82.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $36.5M | $86.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $38.4M | $104.9M |
| Q4 25 | $52.8M | $105.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $43.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $39.4M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $37.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $36.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $43.7M | $96.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $47.4M | $101.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $48.3M | $106.1M |
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 | — | $-6.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | -2.7% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $-6.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-3.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-368.7K | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-2.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $916.8K | $-2.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-816.6K | $-251.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.0M | $-2.5M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-3.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-529.2K | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-2.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $822.1K | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-853.6K | $-375.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -19.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -9.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 15.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -6.5% | -111.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 14.8% | — |
| Q4 25 | -2.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.1% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -0.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.3% | 36.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.3% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -12.98× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -0.42× |
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.
