vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of NewAmsterdam Pharma Co N.V. (NAMSW) and Zimmer Biomet (ZBH), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Zimmer Biomet is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($2.2B vs $32.0K, roughly 70115.6× NewAmsterdam Pharma Co N.V.). Zimmer Biomet runs the higher net margin — -234134.4% vs 6.2%, a 234140.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Zimmer Biomet posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (10.9% vs -99.7%). Zimmer Biomet produced more free cash flow last quarter ($442.6M vs $-41.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Zimmer Biomet's revenue compounded faster (9.0% CAGR vs -84.9%).
Kite Pharma, Inc. is an American biotechnology company that develops cancer immunotherapy products with a primary focus on genetically engineered autologous CAR T cell therapy - a cell-based therapy which relies on chimeric antigen receptors and T cells. Founded in 2009, and based in Santa Monica, California, it was acquired by Gilead Sciences in 2017.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. is a publicly traded American medical device company. It was founded in 1927 to produce aluminum splints. The firm is headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana, where it is part of the medical devices business cluster.
NAMSW vs ZBH — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $32.0K | $2.2B |
| Net Profit | $-74.9M | $139.4M |
| Gross Margin | — | 64.7% |
| Operating Margin | -206187.5% | 6.9% |
| Net Margin | -234134.4% | 6.2% |
| Revenue YoY | -99.7% | 10.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | 18.7% | -41.8% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.62 | $0.71 |
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 | $32.0K | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $348.0K | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $19.1M | $2.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.0M | $1.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $12.8M | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $29.1M | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.3M | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.4M | $1.9B |
| Q4 25 | $-74.9M | $139.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-72.0M | $230.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-17.4M | $152.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-39.5M | $182.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-92.2M | $239.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-16.6M | $249.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-39.0M | $242.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-93.8M | $172.4M |
| Q4 25 | — | 64.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 72.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 71.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 71.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 71.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 70.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 71.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 72.9% |
| Q4 25 | -206187.5% | 6.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | -15845.7% | 17.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | -186.1% | 14.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | -2314.5% | 15.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | -338.5% | 19.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -85.9% | 15.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -2306.9% | 18.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | -3960.2% | 14.1% |
| Q4 25 | -234134.4% | 6.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | -20691.1% | 11.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -90.7% | 7.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1327.3% | 9.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | -721.7% | 11.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | -57.2% | 13.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | -1711.6% | 12.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | -6692.9% | 9.1% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.62 | $0.71 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.61 | $1.16 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.15 | $0.77 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.34 | $0.91 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.91 | $1.18 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.18 | $1.23 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.41 | $1.18 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.06 | $0.84 |
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 | $636.2M | $591.9M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $683.4M | $12.7B |
| Total Assets | $769.3M | $23.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $636.2M | $591.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $702.9M | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $739.2M | $556.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $808.5M | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $834.2M | $525.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $422.7M | $569.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $420.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $393.0M |
| Q4 25 | $683.4M | $12.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $728.1M | $12.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $778.5M | $12.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $777.4M | $12.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $757.5M | $12.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $378.9M | $12.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $387.4M | $12.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $411.8M | $12.6B |
| Q4 25 | $769.3M | $23.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $786.4M | $23.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $815.1M | $22.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $818.4M | $22.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $864.6M | $21.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $439.2M | $21.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $446.7M | $21.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $488.5M | $21.5B |
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 | $-40.9M | $517.4M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-41.0M | $442.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -128046.9% | 19.7% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 312.5% | 3.3% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 3.71× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-148.0M | $1.5B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $-40.9M | $517.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-32.8M | $418.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-37.7M | $378.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-36.5M | $382.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-37.5M | $506.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-12.5M | $395.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-54.0M | $369.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-54.6M | $228.0M |
| Q4 25 | $-41.0M | $442.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-32.8M | $363.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-37.8M | $328.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-36.5M | $338.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-37.5M | $454.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-12.6M | $351.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-54.2M | $316.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-55.0M | $172.9M |
| Q4 25 | -128046.9% | 19.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | -9428.4% | 18.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | -197.2% | 15.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1225.1% | 17.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | -293.5% | 22.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | -43.2% | 19.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | -2377.7% | 16.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | -3924.8% | 9.2% |
| Q4 25 | 312.5% | 3.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 12.1% | 2.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.5% | 2.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.5% | 2.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.0% | 2.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.3% | 2.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.2% | 2.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 27.5% | 2.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | 3.71× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.81× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.48× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.10× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2.11× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.59× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.52× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.32× |
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
NAMSW
Segment breakdown not available.
ZBH
| Knees | $911.0M | 41% |
| SET | $587.6M | 26% |
| Hips | $555.4M | 25% |
| Technology And Data Bone Cement And Surgical | $189.8M | 8% |
