vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Hyperliquid Strategies Inc (PURR) and ScanTech AI Systems Inc. (STAI). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
ScanTech AI Systems Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($631.0K vs $500.0K, roughly 1.3× Hyperliquid Strategies Inc). ScanTech AI Systems Inc. runs the higher net margin — -1532.9% vs -60892.6%, a 59359.7% gap on every dollar of revenue.
PURR vs STAI — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $500.0K | $631.0K |
| Net Profit | $-304.5M | $-9.7M |
| Gross Margin | — | 27.6% |
| Operating Margin | -57509.2% | -773.2% |
| Net Margin | -60892.6% | -1532.9% |
| Revenue YoY | — | — |
| Net Profit YoY | — | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $-7.43 | $-0.16 |
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 | $500.0K | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $631.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $884.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $346.1K |
| Q4 25 | $-304.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-9.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-6.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-17.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 27.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 14.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 29.4% |
| Q4 25 | -57509.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -773.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -440.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -4503.9% |
| Q4 25 | -60892.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -1532.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -785.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -5174.2% |
| Q4 25 | $-7.43 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-0.16 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-0.16 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-0.77 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $281.9M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $17.7M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $589.8M | — |
| Total Assets | $616.6M | $5.1M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $281.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $17.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $17.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $17.7M |
| Q4 25 | $589.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $616.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $5.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $4.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $5.1M |
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 | — | $-758.5K |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 0.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-758.5K | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-1.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-2.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-1.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-2.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -166.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -623.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.0% |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
