vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of SMITH MIDLAND CORP (SMID) and USCB FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC. (USCB). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
SMITH MIDLAND CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($23.1M vs $22.2M, roughly 1.0× USCB FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC.). SMITH MIDLAND CORP runs the higher net margin — 9.2% vs 6.1%, a 3.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, SMITH MIDLAND CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (24.7% vs 14.7%). Over the past eight quarters, SMITH MIDLAND CORP's revenue compounded faster (17.4% CAGR vs 12.3%).
Smith Midland Corp is a specialized manufacturer of precast concrete products for infrastructure, commercial, residential and industrial construction uses. Its key product lines include highway safety barriers, acoustic sound walls, architectural precast panels, and stormwater management systems, serving primarily the North American market with durable, sustainable construction solutions.
USCB Financial Holdings, Inc. is a U.S.-headquartered bank holding company that offers comprehensive retail and commercial banking services, including deposit products, personal and business loans, wealth management, and digital banking tools. It primarily serves individual consumers, small and medium-sized enterprises, and local corporate clients across its operating regions in the United States, prioritizing personalized customer experiences and community-oriented financial services.
SMID vs USCB — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $23.1M | $22.2M |
| Net Profit | $2.1M | $1.4M |
| Gross Margin | 57.5% | — |
| Operating Margin | 37.8% | 14.7% |
| Net Margin | 9.2% | 6.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 24.7% | 14.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | 52.5% | -80.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.41 | — |
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 | $23.1M | $22.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $21.5M | $25.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $26.2M | $24.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $22.7M | $22.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $18.5M | $23.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $23.6M | $21.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $19.6M | $20.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $16.8M | $17.6M |
| Q4 25 | $2.1M | $1.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.9M | $8.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.2M | $8.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.3M | $7.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4M | $6.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.1M | $6.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0M | $6.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.1M | $4.6M |
| Q4 25 | 57.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 26.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 30.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 51.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 27.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 23.3% | — |
| Q4 25 | 37.8% | 14.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 18.0% | 47.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.0% | 44.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.3% | 44.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.5% | 39.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 16.3% | 42.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.0% | 39.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 9.0% | 34.3% |
| Q4 25 | 9.2% | 6.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.4% | 35.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 15.9% | 33.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 14.7% | 33.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 7.5% | 30.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.4% | 32.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.1% | 30.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.8% | 26.2% |
| Q4 25 | $0.41 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.54 | $0.45 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.79 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.62 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.28 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.59 | $0.35 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.37 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.21 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | — | $38.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $54.3M | $217.2M |
| Total Assets | $87.7M | $2.8B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $38.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $56.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $54.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $98.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $77.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $38.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $77.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $126.5M |
| Q4 25 | $54.3M | $217.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $52.1M | $209.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $49.2M | $231.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $45.1M | $225.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $41.7M | $215.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $40.3M | $213.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $37.2M | $201.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $35.3M | $195.0M |
| Q4 25 | $87.7M | $2.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $85.4M | $2.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $81.2K | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $74.7M | $2.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $68.0M | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $66.6M | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $64.0M | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $64.9M | $2.5B |
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 | — | $42.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $42.5M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 191.4% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 1.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 31.40× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $95.1M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $42.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $11.7M | $20.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $18.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.2M | $14.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-645.0K | $34.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.9M | $11.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.7M | $18.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-777.0K | $8.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | $42.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.3M | $20.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $18.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.6M | $14.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-1.3M | $34.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.8M | $11.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $998.0K | $18.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-2.6M | $8.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 191.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 29.5% | 80.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 73.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.1% | 63.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | -7.0% | 150.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.8% | 52.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 5.1% | 88.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | -15.3% | 45.4% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 25.1% | 0.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.6% | 0.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.6% | 1.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.6% | 0.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.7% | 0.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.7% | 0.5% |
| Q4 25 | — | 31.40× | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.07× | 2.25× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.22× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.67× | 1.91× | ||
| Q4 24 | -0.46× | 5.05× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.23× | 1.63× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.37× | 2.95× | ||
| Q1 24 | -0.68× | 1.75× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
SMID
| Product Sales | $13.8M | 60% |
| Service Revenue | $9.3M | 40% |
USCB
Segment breakdown not available.
