vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Sezzle Inc. (SEZL) and Upstart Holdings, Inc. (UPST), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Upstart Holdings, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($296.1M vs $78.2M, roughly 3.8× Sezzle Inc.). Sezzle Inc. runs the higher net margin — 54.6% vs 6.3%, a 48.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Sezzle Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (61.6% vs 35.2%). Upstart Holdings, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($108.4M vs $70.6M). Over the past eight quarters, Sezzle Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (76.0% CAGR vs 52.2%).
Sezzle is a publicly traded financial technology company headquartered in Minneapolis, U.S, with operations in the United States and Canada. The company provides an alternative payment platform offering interest-free installment plans at selected online stores. As of June 2021, the Sezzle platform had over 10 million user sign-ups and over 48,000 participating merchants.
Upstart is an AI lending platform that partners with banks and credit unions to provide consumer loans using non-traditional variables, such as education and employment, to predict creditworthiness.
SEZL vs UPST — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $78.2M | $296.1M |
| Net Profit | $42.7M | $18.6M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 70.6% | 6.4% |
| Net Margin | 54.6% | 6.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 61.6% | 35.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | 68.3% | 776.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.19 | $0.20 |
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 | $78.2M | $296.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $57.5M | $277.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $52.0M | $257.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $48.2M | $213.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $48.4M | $219.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $35.6M | $162.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $30.2M | $127.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $25.2M | $127.8M |
| Q4 25 | $42.7M | $18.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $26.7M | $31.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $27.6M | $5.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $36.2M | $-2.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $25.4M | $-2.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $15.4M | $-6.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $29.7M | $-54.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $8.0M | $-64.6M |
| Q4 25 | 70.6% | 6.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 61.9% | 8.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 69.4% | 1.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -2.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 63.8% | -2.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 58.6% | -27.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 55.3% | -43.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 54.8% | -52.8% |
| Q4 25 | 54.6% | 6.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 46.4% | 11.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 53.1% | 2.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 75.1% | -1.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 52.4% | -1.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 43.4% | -4.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 98.4% | -42.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 31.7% | -50.5% |
| Q4 25 | $1.19 | $0.20 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.75 | $0.23 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.78 | $0.05 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.00 | $-0.03 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.71 | $-0.01 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.44 | $-0.07 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.82 | $-0.62 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.22 | $-0.74 |
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 | $64.1M | $652.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $169.8M | $798.8M |
| Total Assets | $400.2M | $3.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $64.1M | $652.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $104.1M | $489.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $88.9M | $395.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $88.9M | $599.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $73.2M | $788.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $80.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $58.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $77.8M | — |
| Q4 25 | $169.8M | $798.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $155.3M | $743.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $130.4M | $722.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $125.8M | $676.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $87.8M | $633.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $61.1M | $595.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $50.3M | $594.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $29.6M | $612.8M |
| Q4 25 | $400.2M | $3.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $367.0M | $2.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $350.6M | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $298.1M | $2.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $298.4M | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $252.9M | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $212.1M | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $195.7M | $1.9B |
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 | $70.6M | $108.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $70.6M | $108.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 90.2% | 36.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.65× | 5.82× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $209.3M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $70.6M | $108.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $63.7M | $-122.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $23.1M | $-120.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $52.5M | $-13.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $57.4M | $-110.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $35.1M | $179.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $22.2M | $65.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $16.0M | $52.6M |
| Q4 25 | $70.6M | $108.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $63.6M | $-122.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $22.7M | $-120.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $52.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $57.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $35.1M | $179.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $22.2M | $65.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $16.0M | $51.9M |
| Q4 25 | 90.2% | 36.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 110.6% | -44.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 43.6% | -46.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 108.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 118.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 98.6% | 110.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 73.4% | 51.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 63.3% | 40.6% |
| Q4 25 | 0.1% | 0.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.3% | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.8% | 0.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.1% | 0.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.1% | 0.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.0% | 0.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.1% | 0.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.0% | 0.5% |
| Q4 25 | 1.65× | 5.82× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.39× | -3.86× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.84× | -21.43× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.45× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.26× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.27× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.75× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.00× | — |
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
SEZL
| Merchant And Partner Income | $28.9M | 37% |
| Transaction Income | $25.9M | 33% |
| Income From Other Services Late Payment Fees | $20.5M | 26% |
| Other | $2.9M | 4% |
UPST
| Personal Lending Segment | $201.4M | 68% |
| Servicing Fees Net | $39.5M | 13% |
| Servicing Fees | $27.5M | 9% |
| Other | $15.7M | 5% |
| Borrower Fees | $8.4M | 3% |
| Collection Agency Fees | $3.5M | 1% |
