vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of AURORA CANNABIS INC (ACB) and Planet Green Holdings Corp. (PLAG), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Planet Green Holdings Corp. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($521.7K vs $94.2K, roughly 5.5× AURORA CANNABIS INC). AURORA CANNABIS INC runs the higher net margin — -1.9% vs -2541.3%, a 2539.5% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Aurora Cannabis Inc. is a Canadian licensed cannabis producer, headquartered in Edmonton. It trades on the Toronto Stock Exchange and Nasdaq as ACB. As of September 2018, Aurora Cannabis had eight licensed production facilities, five sales licences, and operations in 25 countries. It had a funded capacity of over 625,000 kilograms of cannabis production per annum with the bulk of capacity based in Canada and a growing presence in international markets, particularly Denmark and Latin America. ...
Planet 13 Holdings, Inc. is a cannabis company based in Nevada, United States. On Nov 1, 2018, the company opened its cannabis dispensary in Las Vegas which became the largest cannabis dispensary in the world at 112,000 square feet.
ACB vs PLAG — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $94.2K | $521.7K |
| Net Profit | $-1.7K | $-13.3M |
| Gross Margin | — | 1.8% |
| Operating Margin | — | -2469.5% |
| Net Margin | -1.9% | -2541.3% |
| Revenue YoY | — | -36.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | -296.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | — |
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 | $94.2K | $521.7K | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $771.6K | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $907.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $90.5K | $840.3K | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $823.5K | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $904.1K | ||
| Q1 24 | $45.6K | $1.5M |
| Q4 25 | $-1.7K | $-13.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-12.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-773.6K | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-796.9K | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-3.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-1.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-1.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-1.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 3.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 6.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 17.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 6.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -3.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 54.0% | 23.5% |
| Q4 25 | — | -2469.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -435.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -75.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -85.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -78.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -27.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -105.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -38.7% |
| Q4 25 | -1.9% | -2541.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -1574.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -85.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -94.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -405.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -81.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -190.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -71.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-0.01 |
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 | — | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | — | $-2.2M |
| Total Assets | — | $10.2M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $227.5K | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $539.7K | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $418.8K | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $413.4K | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $411.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $4.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $4.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $3.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | $-2.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-573.5K | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $10.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $11.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $11.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $15.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $16.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $18.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | $10.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $12.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $28.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $26.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $25.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $41.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $42.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $42.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.04× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.04× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.04× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.27× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.25× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.21× |
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 | — | $-457.1K |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $-459.5K |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | -88.1% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | 0.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $-1.8M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $-457.1K | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $697.5K | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-1.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-346.7K | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $377.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $948.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-943.7K | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $430.5K |
| Q4 25 | — | $-459.5K | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $697.5K | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-1.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-349.2K | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $370.6K | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $948.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-945.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $424.3K |
| Q4 25 | — | -88.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 90.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -185.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -41.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 45.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 64.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -104.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 28.2% |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.4% |
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.
