vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of チャイナモバイル (BEEP) and Cable One, Inc. (CABO), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Cable One, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($363.7M vs $8.8M, roughly 41.5× チャイナモバイル). On growth, チャイナモバイル posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (-4.3% vs -6.1%). Over the past eight quarters, チャイナモバイル's revenue compounded faster (-0.4% CAGR vs -5.2%).
中国移動通信集団は中国の国有大手通信企業で、「中国移動」をブランド名として大陸部と香港全域にわたり移動通信ネットワークを通じて音声・マルチメディアサービスを提供しています。2021年6月時点の契約者数は9億4550万人で中国最大の携帯電話事業者であり、フォーブス世界2000強で25位にランクインされています。
Cable One, Inc.はアメリカ合衆国のブロードバンド通信事業者です。Sparklightブランドのもと、全米24州の110万の個人・法人顧客にケーブルテレビ、インターネット、電話サービスを提供しています。またFidelity Communicationsブランドを保有し、アーカンソー州、ルイジアナ州、ミズーリ州、オクラホマ州、テキサス州で同様の通信サービスを展開しており、本社はアリゾナ州フェニックスに置かれています。
BEEP vs CABO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $8.8M | $363.7M |
| Net Profit | $-7.5M | — |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | — | 25.2% |
| Net Margin | -85.6% | — |
| Revenue YoY | -4.3% | -6.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | -650.5% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $-0.49 |
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 | $8.8M | $363.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $9.1M | $376.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.0M | $381.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.2M | $380.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.2M | $387.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.8M | $393.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.3M | $394.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $8.8M | $404.3M |
| Q4 25 | $-7.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-5.8M | $86.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-4.3M | $-438.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-3.9M | $2.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-999.0K | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.3M | $44.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.4M | $38.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-2.1M | $37.4M |
| Q4 25 | — | 25.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 25.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -128.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 25.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 26.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 28.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 27.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 29.6% |
| Q4 25 | -85.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -63.9% | 23.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -47.3% | -114.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -47.2% | 0.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | -10.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -13.4% | 11.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | -14.6% | 9.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | -23.8% | 9.2% |
| Q4 25 | — | $-0.49 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $14.52 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-77.70 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.46 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-18.05 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $7.58 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $6.58 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $6.46 |
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 | $8.3M | $152.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $198.3M | $2.6B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $141.3M | $1.4B |
| Total Assets | $382.5M | $5.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.40× | 1.81× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $8.3M | $152.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.1M | $166.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.6M | $152.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.6M | $149.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.7M | $153.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.7M | $226.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.7M | $201.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.1M | $210.7M |
| Q4 25 | $198.3M | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $183.3M | $2.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $186.7M | $2.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $187.5M | $3.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $188.2M | $3.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $132.8M | $3.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $133.6M | $3.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $134.5M | $3.6B |
| Q4 25 | $141.3M | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $151.7M | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $160.6M | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $164.5M | $1.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $170.0M | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $134.8M | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $107.4M | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $107.9M | $1.9B |
| Q4 25 | $382.5M | $5.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $397.8M | $5.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $405.6M | $5.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $409.5M | $6.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $415.1M | $6.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $418.2M | $6.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $417.1M | $6.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $420.1M | $6.7B |
| Q4 25 | 1.40× | 1.81× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.21× | 1.88× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.16× | 2.16× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.14× | 1.66× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.11× | 1.99× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.99× | 1.84× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.24× | 1.87× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.25× | 1.93× |
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 | $-626.0K | $145.5M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $71.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 19.7% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | 20.3% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $278.1M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $-626.0K | $145.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2M | $156.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.8M | $144.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.5M | $116.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $227.0K | $167.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $0 | $176.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $346.0K | $155.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.4M | $164.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | $71.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $84.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $76.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $45.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $95.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $99.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $84.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $98.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | 19.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 22.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 20.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 11.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 24.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 25.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 21.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 24.5% |
| Q4 25 | — | 20.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 19.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 17.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 18.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 18.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 19.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 18.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 16.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.81× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 44.62× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 3.99× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 4.08× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 4.41× |
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
BEEP
| Transient Parkers | $4.5M | 52% |
| Contract Parkers | $2.4M | 28% |
| Base Rent Income | $1.2M | 14% |
| Other | $607.0K | 7% |
CABO
Segment breakdown not available.
