vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of TDH Holdings, Inc. (PETZ) and Pony AI Inc. (PONY). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Pony AI Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($2.1M vs $1.5M, roughly 1.4× TDH Holdings, Inc.). TDH Holdings, Inc. runs the higher net margin — -90.1% vs -284.8%, a 194.6% gap on every dollar of revenue.
TDH Holdings, Inc. is a pet product enterprise that develops, manufactures and distributes a comprehensive portfolio of pet food, nutritional treats, and daily pet supplies for dogs and cats. Its primary market is mainland China, catering to both online e-commerce and offline physical retail customer segments.
Pony Canyon Inc. , also known by the shorthand form Ponican , is a Japanese company, established on October 1, 1966, which distributes music, films, home video, and video games. It is affiliated with the Japanese media group Fujisankei Communications Group. Pony Canyon is a major leader in the music industry in Japan, with its artists regularly at the top of the Japanese charts. Pony Canyon is also responsible for releasing taped concerts from its artists as well as many anime productions and...
PETZ vs PONY — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2023 vs Q3 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.5M | $2.1M |
| Net Profit | $-1.3M | $-5.9M |
| Gross Margin | 27.5% | 9.2% |
| Operating Margin | -149.8% | -275.3% |
| Net Margin | -90.1% | -284.8% |
| Revenue YoY | — | — |
| Net Profit YoY | — | — |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $-3.51 |
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 | — | $2.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.9M | ||
| Q2 23 | $1.5M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $-5.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-4.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-5.2M | ||
| Q2 23 | $-1.3M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | 9.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 16.6% | ||
| Q2 23 | 27.5% | — |
| Q3 25 | — | -275.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -303.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -400.9% | ||
| Q2 23 | -149.8% | — |
| Q3 25 | — | -284.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -253.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -267.4% | ||
| Q2 23 | -90.1% | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $-3.51 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-0.92 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-0.12 | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $31.8M | $62.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $21.2M | $114.1M |
| Total Assets | $36.5M | $126.5M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | — | $62.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $84.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $86.8M | ||
| Q2 23 | $31.8M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $114.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $120.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $126.4M | ||
| Q2 23 | $21.2M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $126.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $138.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $134.0M | ||
| Q2 23 | $36.5M | — |
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 | $-581.1K | $-2.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | — | $-2.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-2.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-7.5M | ||
| Q2 23 | $-581.1K | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
