vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of INTELLIGENT BIO SOLUTIONS INC. (INBS) and Palladyne AI Corp. (PDYNW), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Palladyne AI Corp. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.7M vs $896.8K, roughly 1.9× INTELLIGENT BIO SOLUTIONS INC.). Palladyne AI Corp. runs the higher net margin — -298.6% vs -89.9%, a 208.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Palladyne AI Corp. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (118.3% vs 47.6%). INTELLIGENT BIO SOLUTIONS INC. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($-1.6M vs $-8.7M). Over the past eight quarters, INTELLIGENT BIO SOLUTIONS INC.'s revenue compounded faster (4.3% CAGR vs -30.5%).
The Institute of Robotics and Intelligent Systems (IRIS) is part of the ETH Zurich, Switzerland. It replaced the existing Institute of Robotics, of the ETH Zurich in October 2002, when Prof. Bradley J. Nelson moved from the University of Minnesota, United States, to ETH Zurich, and succeeded the Prof. Dr. Gerhard Schweitzer.
Palladyne AI Corp. is an American company known for most of its existence primarily as a developer of robots. Palladyne was founded in 1983 as Sarcos Research Corporation. In 2023, Sarcos shifted its business focus to the development of artificial intelligence (AI) software for robotic applications, discontinuing its hardware operations. In March 2024, the company changed its name to Palladyne AI.
INBS vs PDYNW — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $896.8K | $1.7M |
| Net Profit | $-2.7M | $-1.5M |
| Gross Margin | 51.3% | 15.6% |
| Operating Margin | -293.9% | -560.7% |
| Net Margin | -298.6% | -89.9% |
| Revenue YoY | 47.6% | 118.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | -19.0% | 97.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-2.82 | $-0.02 |
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 | $896.8K | $1.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1M | $860.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | $843.9K | $1.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $728.9K | $1.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $607.5K | $761.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | $872.3K | $871.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | $727.8K | $2.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $823.8K | $3.4M |
| Q4 25 | $-2.7M | $-1.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-3.0M | $-3.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-3.1M | $-7.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-2.5M | $22.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-2.2M | $-53.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-2.7M | $-7.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-2.8M | $-5.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-3.0M | $-7.2M |
| Q4 25 | 51.3% | 15.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 46.6% | 46.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 39.8% | 53.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 46.8% | 79.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 36.7% | 27.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 39.8% | 45.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 79.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 21.7% | 45.2% |
| Q4 25 | -293.9% | -560.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | -269.8% | -937.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | -367.5% | -797.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | -350.3% | -405.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | -372.8% | -852.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | -312.4% | -838.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | -386.3% | -213.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | -358.6% | -213.7% |
| Q4 25 | -298.6% | -89.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | -268.3% | -434.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | -366.2% | -737.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | -349.0% | 1330.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | -370.3% | -6960.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | -307.9% | -814.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | -382.5% | -196.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | -361.5% | -210.1% |
| Q4 25 | $-2.82 | $-0.02 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.35 | $-0.09 | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.10 | $-0.20 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.44 | $0.55 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-4.96 | $-1.96 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.70 | $-0.27 | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.60 | $-0.20 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.43 | $-0.28 |
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 | $740.4K | $47.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $11.1M | $74.7M |
| Total Assets | $17.7M | $95.7M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $740.4K | $47.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.7M | $57.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0M | $62.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.8M | $46.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.2M | $40.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.0M | $21.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.3M | $25.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.4M | $31.8M |
| Q4 25 | $11.1M | $74.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.6M | $51.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.0M | $53.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.1M | $28.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.4M | $-9.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.1M | $23.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.3M | $29.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $11.1M | $34.2M |
| Q4 25 | $17.7M | $95.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.0M | $72.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $8.2M | $78.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.6M | $63.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.7M | $56.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.7M | $38.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $13.8M | $45.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $17.0M | $50.4M |
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 | $-1.6M | $-8.5M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-1.6M | $-8.7M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -182.4% | -526.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 7.6% | 14.2% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $-1.6M | $-8.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.8M | $-6.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.2M | $-5.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-2.8M | $-7.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-2.3M | $-5.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-2.4M | $-4.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-2.9M | $-5.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-2.4M | $-7.2M |
| Q4 25 | $-1.6M | $-8.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.9M | $-6.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-7.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-5.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-4.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-5.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-7.3M |
| Q4 25 | -182.4% | -526.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | -262.4% | -776.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -445.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -676.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -517.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -218.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -212.1% |
| Q4 25 | 7.6% | 14.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.3% | 44.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 5.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 6.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 5.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -0.33× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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.
