vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of CyberArk Software Ltd. (CYBR) and HELIOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (HLIO), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
CyberArk Software Ltd. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($988.5M vs $220.3M, roughly 4.5× HELIOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.). HELIOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. runs the higher net margin — -13.1% vs 4.7%, a 17.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. CyberArk Software Ltd. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($144.9M vs $18.6M).
CyberArk Software Ltd. is an Israeli publicly traded information security company offering identity management. The company's technology is utilized primarily in the financial services, energy, retail, healthcare and government markets. CyberArk is headquartered in Petach-Tikva. The company also has offices throughout the Americas, EMEA, Asia Pacific and Japan.
Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. was a publicly traded data analytics company based in New York City, New York. The company became widely known during its final years for acquiring and subsequently operating MoviePass, which ultimately led to the company's bankruptcy.
CYBR vs HLIO — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2025 vs Q3 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $988.5M | $220.3M |
| Net Profit | $-129.8M | $10.3M |
| Gross Margin | 76.0% | 33.1% |
| Operating Margin | -10.8% | 0.6% |
| Net Margin | -13.1% | 4.7% |
| Revenue YoY | — | 13.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | -9.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | — | $0.31 |
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.
| Q3 25 | $988.5M | $220.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $645.6M | $212.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $317.6M | $195.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $179.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $100.0K | $194.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $446.3M | $219.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $221.6M | $212.0M | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $201.4M |
| Q3 25 | $-129.8M | $10.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-79.4M | $11.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $11.5M | $7.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $4.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $11.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-7.5M | $13.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.5M | $9.2M | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $3.5M |
| Q3 25 | 76.0% | 33.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 75.7% | 31.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 76.0% | 30.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 30.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 31.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 80.4% | 32.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 80.9% | 31.7% | ||
| Q3 23 | — | 29.6% |
| Q3 25 | -10.8% | 0.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | -8.8% | 10.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | -6.5% | 8.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 7.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 11.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -6.8% | 11.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | -2.9% | 9.6% | ||
| Q3 23 | — | 6.9% |
| Q3 25 | -13.1% | 4.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -12.3% | 5.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.6% | 3.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 5.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -1.7% | 6.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.5% | 4.3% | ||
| Q3 23 | — | 1.7% |
| Q3 25 | — | $0.31 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $0.34 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.22 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $0.14 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $0.34 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0.41 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $0.28 | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $0.11 |
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 | $523.6M | $54.9M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $420.0M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.3B | $917.9M |
| Total Assets | $4.6B | $1.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.46× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q3 25 | $523.6M | $54.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $886.4M | $53.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $413.6M | $45.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $44.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $46.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.2B | $45.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $440.5M | $37.3M | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $35.2M |
| Q3 25 | — | $420.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $437.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $446.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $450.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $484.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $504.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $521.8M | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $545.2M |
| Q3 25 | $2.3B | $917.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.3B | $911.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.4B | $881.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $864.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $885.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $877.0M | $866.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $837.0M | $856.6M | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $842.0M |
| Q3 25 | $4.6B | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.5B | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.3B | $1.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.1B | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.0B | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $1.6B |
| Q3 25 | — | 0.46× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.48× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.51× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.52× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.55× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.58× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.61× | ||
| Q3 23 | — | 0.65× |
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 | $153.9M | $25.3M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $144.9M | $18.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 14.7% | 8.4% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 0.9% | 3.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 2.46× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $91.3M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q3 25 | $153.9M | $25.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $103.3M | $37.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $98.5M | $19.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $35.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $167.2M | $34.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $33.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $68.6M | $17.8M | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $37.9M |
| Q3 25 | $144.9M | $18.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $98.8M | $31.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $96.8M | $12.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $28.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $28.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $25.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $66.8M | $12.3M | ||
| Q3 23 | — | $32.1M |
| Q3 25 | 14.7% | 8.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 15.3% | 14.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 30.5% | 6.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 15.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 14.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 11.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 30.1% | 5.8% | ||
| Q3 23 | — | 15.9% |
| Q3 25 | 0.9% | 3.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.7% | 2.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.5% | 3.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 4.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 3.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 3.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.8% | 2.6% | ||
| Q3 23 | — | 2.9% |
| Q3 25 | — | 2.46× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 3.25× | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.60× | 2.60× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 7.44× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 3.05× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 2.49× | ||
| Q1 24 | 12.55× | 1.93× | ||
| Q3 23 | — | 10.83× |
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
CYBR
| Subscription | $794.5M | 80% |
| Maintenance, Professional Services and other | $194.0M | 20% |
HLIO
| Hydraulics | $141.3M | 64% |
| Electronics | $79.0M | 36% |
