vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of BIT ORIGIN Ltd (BTOG) and Roblox Corp (RBLX), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Roblox Corp is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.4B vs $39.5K, roughly 35827.9× BIT ORIGIN Ltd). Roblox Corp runs the higher net margin — -3926.7% vs -22.3%, a 3904.3% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Origin Systems, Inc. was an American video game developer based in Austin, Texas. It was founded on March 3, 1983, by Richard Garriott and his brother Robert. Origin is best known for their groundbreaking work in multiple genres of video games, such as the Ultima and Wing Commander series. The company was purchased by Electronic Arts in 1992.
Roblox Corporation is an American video game developer based in San Mateo, California. Founded in 2004 by David Baszucki and Erik Cassel, the company is the developer of Roblox, a game platform, which was released in 2006. As of December 31, 2024, the company employs over 2,400 people.
BTOG vs RBLX — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $39.5K | $1.4B |
| Net Profit | $-1.6M | $-316.0M |
| Gross Margin | 100.0% | 77.7% |
| Operating Margin | -2747.5% | -25.3% |
| Net Margin | -3926.7% | -22.3% |
| Revenue YoY | — | 43.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | -43.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.06 | $-0.44 |
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 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $39.5K | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $988.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $919.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $893.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $801.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | $-316.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-255.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.6M | $-278.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-215.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-219.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-239.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-205.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-270.6M |
| Q4 25 | — | 77.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 78.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 100.0% | 78.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 78.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 77.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 77.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 77.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 77.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | -25.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -21.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | -2747.5% | -29.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -24.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -24.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -30.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -26.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -37.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | -22.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -18.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3926.7% | -25.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -20.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -22.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -26.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -23.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -33.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | $-0.44 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-0.37 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.06 | $-0.41 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-0.32 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-0.32 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-0.37 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $-0.32 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-0.43 |
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 | $55.6K | $3.1B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $1.2B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $3.9M | $394.5M |
| Total Assets | $3.5M | $9.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 2.98× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $3.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $55.6K | $2.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.4B |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $394.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $407.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.9M | $353.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $310.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $221.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $189.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $121.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $71.6M |
| Q4 25 | — | $9.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $8.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.5M | $7.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $7.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $7.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $6.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $6.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $6.3B |
| Q4 25 | — | 2.98× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 5.48× | ||
| 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 | $634.6K | $607.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $308.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 21.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | 21.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $1.4B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $607.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $546.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $634.6K | $199.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $443.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $184.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $247.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $151.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $238.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | $308.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $443.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $176.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $426.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $120.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $218.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $111.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $192.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | 21.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 32.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 16.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 41.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 12.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 23.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 12.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 24.0% |
| Q4 25 | — | 21.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 7.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 6.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 3.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 4.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 5.8% |
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.
