vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Serve Robotics Inc. /DE/ (SERV) and Sonos Inc (SONO), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Sonos Inc is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($287.9M vs $881.5K, roughly 326.6× Serve Robotics Inc. /DE/). Sonos Inc runs the higher net margin — -3888.1% vs -13.1%, a 3875.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Serve Robotics Inc. /DE/ posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (400.1% vs 12.7%). Over the past eight quarters, Serve Robotics Inc. /DE/'s revenue compounded faster (-3.5% CAGR vs -31.5%).
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...
Sonos, Inc. is an American audio equipment manufacturer headquartered in Santa Barbara, California. The company was founded in 2002 by John MacFarlane, Craig Shelburne, Tom Cullen, and Trung Mai.
SERV vs SONO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $881.5K | $287.9M |
| Net Profit | $-34.3M | $-37.9M |
| Gross Margin | -757.3% | 43.7% |
| Operating Margin | -4572.1% | -12.0% |
| Net Margin | -3888.1% | -13.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 400.1% | 12.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | -161.3% | 28.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.50 | $-0.30 |
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 | $881.5K | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $687.0K | $287.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $642.0K | $344.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $440.5K | $259.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $176.3K | $550.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $222.0K | $255.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $468.0K | $397.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $946.7K | $252.7M |
| Q4 25 | $-34.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-33.0M | $-37.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-20.9M | $-3.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-13.2M | $-70.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-13.1M | $50.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-8.0M | $-53.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-9.0M | $3.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-9.0M | $-69.7M |
| Q4 25 | -757.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -637.4% | 43.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -445.3% | 43.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | -333.4% | 43.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | -371.7% | 43.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | -70.3% | 40.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 30.3% | 48.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 62.8% | 44.3% |
| Q4 25 | -4572.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -5067.8% | -12.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3527.1% | -0.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -3406.6% | -23.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | -7701.3% | 8.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | -3804.1% | -27.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | -1828.2% | 3.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | -814.6% | -28.1% |
| Q4 25 | -3888.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -4806.4% | -13.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3247.7% | -1.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | -3000.5% | -27.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | -7441.8% | 9.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | -3601.8% | -20.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | -1931.2% | 0.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -954.7% | -27.6% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.50 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.54 | $-0.30 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.36 | $-0.03 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.23 | $-0.58 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.23 | $0.40 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.20 | $-0.42 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.27 | $0.03 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.37 | $-0.56 |
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 | $106.2M | $174.7M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $350.7M | $355.2M |
| Total Assets | $367.8M | $823.3M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $106.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $116.8M | $174.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $116.7M | $201.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $197.8M | $173.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $123.3M | $280.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $50.9M | $169.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $28.8M | $227.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $246.0M |
| Q4 25 | $350.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $283.9M | $355.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $207.2M | $399.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $210.2M | $382.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $131.7M | $469.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $56.2M | $428.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $28.5M | $464.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-8.8M | $494.0M |
| Q4 25 | $367.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $299.1M | $823.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $214.3M | $834.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $216.6M | $792.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $139.6M | $963.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $61.5M | $916.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $32.8M | $961.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.2M | $925.6M |
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 | $-29.6M | $2.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-46.1M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -5234.4% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 1872.1% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-117.6M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $-29.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-25.2M | $2.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-16.0M | $37.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-9.5M | $-59.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-6.3M | $156.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-5.5M | $-37.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-5.7M | $63.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-4.1M | $-111.2M |
| Q4 25 | $-46.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-36.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-22.0M | $32.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-12.9M | $-65.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-11.1M | $143.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-10.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-6.5M | $40.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-4.1M | $-121.4M |
| Q4 25 | -5234.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -5314.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -3426.8% | 9.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -2934.1% | -25.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | -6307.8% | 26.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | -4529.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -1396.6% | 10.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | -431.1% | -48.1% |
| Q4 25 | 1872.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1649.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 940.4% | 1.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 785.7% | 2.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2755.1% | 2.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2070.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 169.8% | 5.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.4% | 4.0% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 3.11× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 17.12× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
SERV
Segment breakdown not available.
SONO
| Sonos Speakers | $206.5M | 72% |
| Sonos System Products | $65.2M | 23% |
| Partner Products And Other Revenue | $16.2M | 6% |
