vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of BETA Technologies, Inc. (BETA) and CITY HOLDING CO (CHCO), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
CITY HOLDING CO is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($60.6M vs $8.9M, roughly 6.8× BETA Technologies, Inc.). CITY HOLDING CO runs the higher net margin — -4902.6% vs 52.1%, a 4954.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, BETA Technologies, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (190.9% vs 9.0%).
Unity Software Inc. is an American video game software development company based in San Francisco. It was founded in Denmark in 2004 as Over the Edge Entertainment and changed its name in 2007. Unity Technologies is best known for the development of Unity, a licensed game engine used to create video games and other applications.
Jam City, Inc. is an American video game developer and publisher based in Culver City, California. The company was founded in 2010 by Chris DeWolfe, Colin Digiaro, Aber Whitcomb, and Josh Yguado. Jam City has nine studios located in the United States, Canada, South America, and Europe. As of 2021, it employs 825 people. Netmarble is the largest shareholder in Jam City. As of 2021, Jam City's games have 31 million monthly active users and 1.3 billion total downloads.
BETA vs CHCO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $8.9M | $60.6M |
| Net Profit | $-437.2M | $31.6M |
| Gross Margin | 69.3% | — |
| Operating Margin | -903.5% | 65.3% |
| Net Margin | -4902.6% | 52.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 190.9% | 9.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | -482.5% | 10.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-9.83 | $2.17 |
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 | — | $60.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.9M | $61.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $58.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $55.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $55.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.1M | $55.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $54.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $54.4M |
| Q4 25 | — | $31.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-437.2M | $35.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $33.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $30.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $28.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-75.1M | $29.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $29.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $29.5M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 69.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 61.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 65.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | -903.5% | 71.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 69.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 66.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 62.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | -2381.0% | 66.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 66.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 67.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | 52.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | -4902.6% | 57.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 56.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 54.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 51.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | -2448.3% | 53.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 53.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 54.2% |
| Q4 25 | — | $2.17 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-9.83 | $2.41 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.29 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.06 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.94 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.81 | $2.02 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.96 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.97 |
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 | $687.6M | $191.9M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $150.0M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $789.9M | $809.7M |
| Total Assets | $1.1B | $6.7B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.19× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $191.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $687.6M | $225.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $172.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $384.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $225.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $52.2M | $293.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $218.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $318.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | $150.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $150.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $150.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $150.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $150.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $150.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $150.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $150.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | $809.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $789.9M | $798.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $764.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $756.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $730.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $196.1M | $741.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $686.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $682.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | $6.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $6.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $6.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $6.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $6.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $6.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $6.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $6.3B |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.19× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.19× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.20× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.20× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.21× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.20× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.22× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.22× |
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 | — | $34.3M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $33.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 55.5% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | 1.2% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 1.09× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $128.4M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $34.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $37.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $28.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $31.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $33.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $37.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $28.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $32.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | $33.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $35.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $27.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $31.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $32.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $37.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $27.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $31.6M |
| Q4 25 | — | 55.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 58.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 47.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 56.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 59.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 66.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 50.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 58.0% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.1% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.09× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.06× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.85× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.04× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.18× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.26× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.97× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.09× |
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
BETA
| Commerical Customers | $6.2M | 70% |
| United States Government | $2.7M | 30% |
CHCO
Segment breakdown not available.
