vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of ReTo Eco-Solutions, Inc. (RETO) and Serve Robotics Inc. (SERV). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
ReTo Eco-Solutions, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.0M vs $881.5K, roughly 1.2× Serve Robotics Inc.). ReTo Eco-Solutions, Inc. runs the higher net margin — -131.6% vs -3888.1%, a 3756.5% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Serve Robotics Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (400.1% vs 36.6%). ReTo Eco-Solutions, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($-1.7M vs $-46.1M).
ReTo Eco-Solutions, Inc. develops and supplies eco-friendly construction materials, environmental remediation services, and solid waste treatment solutions. Its core offerings include recycled construction aggregates, soil improvement products, and ecological restoration systems, primarily serving infrastructure, real estate, and environmental conservation sectors across the Chinese market.
Ecovacs Robotics is a Chinese technology company. It is best known for developing in-home robotic appliances. The company was founded in 1998 by Qian Dongqi and is headquartered in Suzhou, China. According to Global Asia, Ecovacs Robotics had more than 60% of the Chinese market for robots by 2013. In 2023, Nikkei Asia had reported that the market capitalisation of Ecovacs Robotics has grown to near $6.38 billion, which is "roughly 5 times" that of the market capitalisation of rivalling US bas...
RETO vs SERV — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.0M | $881.5K |
| Net Profit | $-1.4M | $-34.3M |
| Gross Margin | 17.7% | -757.3% |
| Operating Margin | -133.0% | -4572.1% |
| Net Margin | -131.6% | -3888.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 36.6% | 400.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | -103.5% | -161.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $-0.50 |
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 | — | $881.5K | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $687.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0M | $642.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $440.5K | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $176.3K | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $222.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | $768.4K | $468.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $946.7K |
| Q4 25 | — | $-34.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-33.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.4M | $-20.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-13.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-13.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-8.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-678.5K | $-9.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-9.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | -757.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -637.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 17.7% | -445.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -333.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -371.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -70.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 43.3% | 30.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 62.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | -4572.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -5067.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | -133.0% | -3527.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -3406.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -7701.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -3804.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | -68.0% | -1828.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -814.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | -3888.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -4806.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -131.6% | -3247.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -3000.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -7441.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -3601.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | -88.3% | -1931.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -954.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | $-0.50 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-0.54 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-0.36 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-0.23 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-0.23 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-0.20 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.25 | $-0.27 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-0.37 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $2.5M | $106.2M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $30.4M | $350.7M |
| Total Assets | $41.4M | $367.8M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $106.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $116.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.5M | $116.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $197.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $123.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $50.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6M | $28.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $350.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $283.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $30.4M | $207.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $210.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $131.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $56.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $13.3M | $28.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-8.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | $367.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $299.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $41.4M | $214.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $216.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $139.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $61.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $33.7M | $32.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $4.2M |
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 | $-1.6M | $-29.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-1.7M | $-46.1M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -157.4% | -5234.4% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 5.1% | 1872.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $-117.6M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $-29.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-25.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.6M | $-16.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-9.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-6.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-5.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-4.8M | $-5.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-4.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | $-46.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-36.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.7M | $-22.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-12.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-11.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-10.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-6.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-4.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | -5234.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -5314.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | -157.4% | -3426.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -2934.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -6307.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -4529.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -1396.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -431.1% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1872.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1649.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 5.1% | 940.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 785.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2755.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2070.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 169.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.4% |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
