vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Stoke Therapeutics, Inc. (STOK) and UP Fintech Holding Ltd (TIGR). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Stoke Therapeutics, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($158.6M vs $107.6M, roughly 1.5× UP Fintech Holding Ltd). Stoke Therapeutics, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 71.2% vs 28.4%, a 42.8% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Stoke Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing innovative RNA-targeted therapies for severe rare genetic diseases. Its lead candidates address unmet needs for Dravet syndrome, a rare epilepsy, and other neurological monogenic disorders, serving patients across North America and global markets.
UP Fintech Holding Limited, operating under the Tiger Brokers brand, provides online financial services for global Chinese investors. It offers cross-market stock trading (US, Hong Kong, mainland China A-shares), fund management, margin financing and investor education for retail and institutional clients.
STOK vs TIGR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $158.6M | $107.6M |
| Net Profit | $112.9M | $30.6M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 70.2% | — |
| Net Margin | 71.2% | 28.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 3661.1% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | 528.0% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.90 | $0.01 |
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 25 | $158.6M | $107.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $22.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $166.4M | ||
| Q2 23 | $-2.5M | — |
| Q1 25 | $112.9M | $30.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-10.5M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $15.2M | ||
| Q2 23 | $-30.7M | — |
| Q1 25 | 70.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -60.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 14.0% | ||
| Q2 23 | 1340.7% | — |
| Q1 25 | 71.2% | 28.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | -46.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 9.1% | ||
| Q2 23 | 1235.6% | — |
| Q1 25 | $1.90 | $0.01 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.15 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0.01 | ||
| Q2 23 | $-0.69 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $274.8M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $350.1M | — |
| Total Assets | $406.9M | — |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 25 | $274.8M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $128.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $392.5M | ||
| Q2 23 | $192.1M | — |
| Q1 25 | $350.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $229.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $501.2M | ||
| Q2 23 | $190.2M | — |
| Q1 25 | $406.9M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $271.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $4.8B | ||
| Q2 23 | $256.9M | — |
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 | $131.8M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $131.7M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 83.0% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.1% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.17× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 25 | $131.8M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-23.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $155.1M | ||
| Q2 23 | $-21.8M | — |
| Q1 25 | $131.7M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-23.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $153.8M | ||
| Q2 23 | $-22.6M | — |
| Q1 25 | 83.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -102.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 92.4% | ||
| Q2 23 | 912.5% | — |
| Q1 25 | 0.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.8% | ||
| Q2 23 | -33.8% | — |
| Q1 25 | 1.17× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 10.20× | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
