vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Modular Medical, Inc. (MODD) and UTAH MEDICAL PRODUCTS INC (UTMD), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
UTAH MEDICAL PRODUCTS INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($9.0M vs $108.0K, roughly 83.8× Modular Medical, Inc.). UTAH MEDICAL PRODUCTS INC runs the higher net margin — -4878.7% vs 28.4%, a 4907.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Modular Medical, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (18498.6% vs -1.2%). UTAH MEDICAL PRODUCTS INC produced more free cash flow last quarter ($3.4M vs $-4.5M).
Varian Medical Systems is an American radiation oncology treatments and software maker based in Palo Alto, California. Their medical devices include linear accelerators (LINACs) and software for treating cancer and other medical conditions with radiotherapy, radiosurgery, proton therapy, and brachytherapy. The company supplies software for managing cancer clinics, radiotherapy centers, and medical oncology practices. Varian Medical Systems employs more than 7,100 people at manufacturing sites...
Varian Medical Systems is an American radiation oncology treatments and software maker based in Palo Alto, California. Their medical devices include linear accelerators (LINACs) and software for treating cancer and other medical conditions with radiotherapy, radiosurgery, proton therapy, and brachytherapy. The company supplies software for managing cancer clinics, radiotherapy centers, and medical oncology practices. Varian Medical Systems employs more than 7,100 people at manufacturing sites...
MODD vs UTMD — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2024 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $108.0K | $9.0M |
| Net Profit | $-5.3M | $2.6M |
| Gross Margin | — | 58.2% |
| Operating Margin | -4878.7% | 27.0% |
| Net Margin | -4878.7% | 28.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 18498.6% | -1.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | -56.9% | -11.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.23 | $0.80 |
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 | — | $9.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $9.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $10.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $9.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $9.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $10.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $10.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $11.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | $2.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $3.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $3.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $3.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $4.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 58.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 57.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 56.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 57.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 58.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 58.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 60.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 59.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | 27.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 26.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 32.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 32.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 32.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 33.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 33.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 34.2% |
| Q4 25 | — | 28.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 26.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 30.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 31.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 31.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 35.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 33.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 34.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.80 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.82 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.94 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.92 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.86 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.03 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0.98 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.09 |
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 | $2.0M | $85.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $225.0K |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.8M | $119.3M |
| Total Assets | $6.2M | $122.5M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.00× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $85.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $84.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $82.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $83.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $83.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $88.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $89.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $93.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | $225.0K | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $269.0K | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $282.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $119.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $118.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $117.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $117.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $117.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $124.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $124.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $127.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | $122.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $122.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $120.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $122.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $122.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $129.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $130.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $135.4M |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.00× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.00× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.00× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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 | $-4.0M | $3.5M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-4.5M | $3.4M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -4133.3% | 37.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 462.0% | 1.2% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 1.36× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $14.3M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $3.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $4.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $3.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $5.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | $3.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $4.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $3.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $5.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | 37.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 39.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 28.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 44.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 32.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 37.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 25.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 46.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.2% |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.36× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.47× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.94× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.47× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.01× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.08× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.80× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.33× |
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.
