vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of NETGEAR, INC. (NTGR) and Serve Robotics Inc. /DE/ (SERV), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
NETGEAR, INC. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($182.5M vs $881.5K, roughly 207.0× Serve Robotics Inc. /DE/). On growth, Serve Robotics Inc. /DE/ posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (400.1% vs 0.0%). NETGEAR, INC. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($13.6M vs $-46.1M). Over the past eight quarters, NETGEAR, INC.'s revenue compounded faster (5.3% CAGR vs -3.5%).
Netgear, Inc., is an American computer networking company based in San Jose, California, with offices in about 22 other countries. It produces networking hardware for consumers, businesses, and service providers. The company operates in three business segments: retail, commercial, and as a service provider.
Ecovacs Robotics is a Chinese technology company. It is best known for developing in-home robotic appliances. The company was founded in 1998 by Qian Dongqi and is headquartered in Suzhou, China. According to Global Asia, Ecovacs Robotics had more than 60% of the Chinese market for robots by 2013. In 2023, Nikkei Asia had reported that the market capitalisation of Ecovacs Robotics has grown to near $6.38 billion, which is "roughly 5 times" that of the market capitalisation of rivalling US bas...
NTGR vs SERV — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $182.5M | $881.5K |
| Net Profit | — | $-34.3M |
| Gross Margin | 40.4% | -757.3% |
| Operating Margin | -2.6% | -4572.1% |
| Net Margin | — | -3888.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 0.0% | 400.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | -161.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.03 | $-0.50 |
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 | $182.5M | $881.5K | ||
| Q3 25 | $184.6M | $687.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | $170.5M | $642.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $162.1M | $440.5K | ||
| Q4 24 | $182.4M | $176.3K | ||
| Q3 24 | $182.9M | $222.0K | ||
| Q2 24 | $143.9M | $468.0K | ||
| Q1 24 | $164.6M | $946.7K |
| Q4 25 | — | $-34.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-4.8M | $-33.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-6.4M | $-20.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-6.0M | $-13.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-8.9M | $-13.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $85.1M | $-8.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-45.2M | $-9.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-18.6M | $-9.0M |
| Q4 25 | 40.4% | -757.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 39.1% | -637.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 37.5% | -445.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 34.8% | -333.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 32.6% | -371.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 30.9% | -70.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 22.1% | 30.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 29.3% | 62.8% |
| Q4 25 | -2.6% | -4572.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | -3.8% | -5067.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | -5.6% | -3527.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | -7.9% | -3406.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | -8.3% | -7701.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 52.4% | -3804.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | -32.6% | -1828.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | -13.2% | -814.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | -3888.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | -2.6% | -4806.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.8% | -3247.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | -3.7% | -3000.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | -4.9% | -7441.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 46.5% | -3601.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | -31.4% | -1931.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | -11.3% | -954.7% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.03 | $-0.50 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.17 | $-0.54 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.22 | $-0.36 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.21 | $-0.23 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.29 | $-0.23 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.90 | $-0.20 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.56 | $-0.27 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.63 | $-0.37 |
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 | $323.0M | $106.2M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $497.8M | $350.7M |
| Total Assets | $836.3M | $367.8M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $323.0M | $106.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $326.4M | $116.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $363.5M | $116.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $391.9M | $197.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $408.7M | $123.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $395.7M | $50.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $294.3M | $28.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $289.4M | — |
| Q4 25 | $497.8M | $350.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $506.8M | $283.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $523.2M | $207.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $534.2M | $210.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $541.1M | $131.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $550.3M | $56.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $459.4M | $28.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $511.4M | $-8.8M |
| Q4 25 | $836.3M | $367.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $810.8M | $299.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $803.5M | $214.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $814.2M | $216.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $850.2M | $139.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $862.6M | $61.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $754.1M | $32.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $801.3M | $4.2M |
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 | $19.5M | $-29.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $13.6M | $-46.1M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 7.5% | -5234.4% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 3.2% | 1872.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-18.9M | $-117.6M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $19.5M | $-29.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-7.4M | $-25.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.8M | $-16.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-8.7M | $-9.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $21.5M | $-6.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $107.7M | $-5.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.4M | $-5.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $17.2M | $-4.1M |
| Q4 25 | $13.6M | $-46.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-17.1M | $-36.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-5.3M | $-22.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-10.1M | $-12.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.0M | $-11.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $106.0M | $-10.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $16.1M | $-6.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $14.7M | $-4.1M |
| Q4 25 | 7.5% | -5234.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | -9.3% | -5314.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.1% | -3426.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | -6.3% | -2934.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 10.4% | -6307.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 58.0% | -4529.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 11.2% | -1396.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 8.9% | -431.1% |
| Q4 25 | 3.2% | 1872.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 5.3% | 1649.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.1% | 940.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.9% | 785.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.4% | 2755.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.9% | 2070.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.6% | 169.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.5% | 0.4% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.27× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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.
