vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of DNA X, Inc. (SONM) and VALUE LINE INC (VALU). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
DNA X, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($16.2M vs $8.3M, roughly 2.0× VALUE LINE INC). VALUE LINE INC runs the higher net margin — 71.4% vs -29.3%, a 100.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, DNA X, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (7.9% vs -7.7%). Over the past eight quarters, DNA X, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (9.9% CAGR vs -4.1%).
Value Line, Inc. is a publicly traded investment research and financial publishing firm based in New York City. Founded in 1931 by Arnold Bernhard, Value Line is best known for publishing The Value Line Investment Survey, a stock analysis newsletter that tracks approximately 1,700 publicly traded stocks.
SONM vs VALU — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $16.2M | $8.3M |
| Net Profit | $-4.8M | $5.9M |
| Gross Margin | 11.2% | — |
| Operating Margin | -24.5% | 12.1% |
| Net Margin | -29.3% | 71.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 7.9% | -7.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | -89.2% | 14.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-4.83 | — |
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.
| Q1 26 | — | $8.3M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $8.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $16.2M | $8.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $11.2M | $8.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $16.7M | $9.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $15.3M | $8.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $15.0M | $8.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $11.5M | $9.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | $5.9M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $5.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-4.8M | $6.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-7.5M | $4.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $458.0K | $5.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-21.6M | $5.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-2.5M | $5.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-6.6M | $4.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.6% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 50.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -1.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 28.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 25.8% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | 12.1% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 17.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | -24.5% | 17.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -60.2% | 9.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.9% | 17.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 55.3% | 19.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | -15.8% | 20.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | -56.2% | 16.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | 71.4% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 66.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | -29.3% | 75.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | -66.8% | 47.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.7% | 57.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | -141.6% | 64.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | -16.7% | 66.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -57.5% | 53.1% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-4.83 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.79 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.08 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-116.99 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-9.32 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.41 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $2.1M | $92.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $5.1M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $-701.0K | $107.8M |
| Total Assets | $40.2M | $151.0M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $92.5M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $86.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.1M | $33.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.0M | $67.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.1M | $52.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.3M | $22.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.1M | $30.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.6M | $4.4M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.8M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $107.8M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $105.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-701.0K | $103.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.3M | $99.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.1M | $99.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-5.7M | $96.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $15.3M | $93.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $17.5M | $90.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | $151.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $147.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $40.2M | $148.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $36.1M | $144.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $36.0M | $143.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $39.7M | $140.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $49.1M | $138.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $45.9M | $136.0M |
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 | $-7.0M | $5.3M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 0.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 0.89× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $5.3M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $3.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-7.0M | $5.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-4.9M | $20.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-9.6M | $6.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-4.5M | $3.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-417.0K | $4.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-3.4M | $17.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $20.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $6.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-4.5M | $3.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-554.0K | $4.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-3.4M | $17.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 239.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 75.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | -29.6% | 34.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | -3.7% | 53.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | -29.8% | 199.0% |
| Q1 26 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.1% | 0.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.9% | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.3% | 0.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | 0.89× | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.52× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.86× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 5.12× | ||
| Q1 25 | -20.97× | 1.33× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.54× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.81× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 3.75× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
