vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of UP Fintech Holding Ltd (TIGR) and XBP Global Holdings, Inc. (XBP). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
XBP Global Holdings, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($152.4M vs $107.6M, roughly 1.4× UP Fintech Holding Ltd). UP Fintech Holding Ltd runs the higher net margin — 28.4% vs -200.7%, a 229.1% gap on every dollar of revenue.
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.
TIGR vs XBP — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $107.6M | $152.4M |
| Net Profit | $30.6M | $-305.8M |
| Gross Margin | — | 21.7% |
| Operating Margin | — | -191.7% |
| Net Margin | 28.4% | -200.7% |
| Revenue YoY | — | -34.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | -980.1% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.01 | $-2.60 |
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.
| Q3 25 | — | $152.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $107.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $233.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $166.4M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $-305.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $30.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-28.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $15.2M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | 21.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 18.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | — | -191.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 14.0% | — |
| Q3 25 | — | -200.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 28.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -12.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.1% | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $-2.60 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.01 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-0.09 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.01 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | — | $34.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $381.5M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | — | $130.5M |
| Total Assets | — | $947.9M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 2.92× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | — | $34.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $7.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $392.5M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $381.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $31.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $130.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-1.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $501.2M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $947.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $99.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.8B | — |
| Q3 25 | — | 2.92× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
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 | — | $13.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $10.5M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 6.9% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | 2.2% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | — | $13.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-1.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $155.1M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $10.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-6.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $153.8M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | 6.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -2.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 92.4% | — |
| Q3 25 | — | 2.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.8% | — |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 10.20× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
TIGR
Segment breakdown not available.
XBP
| Related And Non Related Party | $136.5M | 90% |
| Technology | $8.2M | 5% |
| Other | $5.7M | 4% |
| Deferred Revenue As Of July312025 | $1.9M | 1% |
