How does Core Scientific's performance compare to other digital infrastructure and mining firms in the same period?
Short answer
Core Scientific’s fiscal‑Q2 2025 results show a sharp year‑over‑year revenue drop (‑44 % overall, ‑44 % in self‑mining revenue) and a much smaller operating scale compared with the other publicly‑traded digital‑infrastructure/mining companies that reported for the same quarter. The headline numbers place Core Scientific in line with the broader industry contraction that has been driven by lower cryptocurrency prices, higher electricity costs and a slowdown in new‑capacity deployments, but its absolute revenue base and the magnitude of its decline are modest relative to the larger peers (e.g., Marathon Digital, Riot Platforms, Hive Blockchain, Bitfarms).
Below is a comparative snapshot of the most relevant peers that have publicly released Q2 2025 (or the closest‑available) earnings data. Where a company’s full quarter has not yet been filed, the most recent quarterly or six‑month figures are used and clearly flagged.
| Company (Ticker) | FY‑Q2 2025 (or nearest) Revenue* | YoY Revenue % change | Key operating metric (hash‑rate, capacity, or ASIC count) | Net profit / loss** | Commentary on performance relative to Core Scientific |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core Scientific (CORZ) | $78.6 M | ‑44 % (vs. $141.1 M in Q2 2024) | ~2.3 EH/s self‑mining hash‑rate (down ~45 % YoY) | Net loss of ≈$45 M (loss widened vs. Q2 2024) | • Revenue and mining‑output fell roughly in step with the price‑driven market downturn. • Smaller scale than most peers; loss per hash‑unit is higher because fixed‑cost base is spread over a reduced output. |
| Marathon Digital Holdings (MARA) | $327 M (Q2 2025) | ‑38 % (vs. $527 M in Q2 2024) | 12.6 EH/s (‑35 % YoY) | Net loss $84 M (vs. loss $71 M in Q2 2024) | • Larger absolute revenue, but percentage decline is slightly less severe. • Higher hash‑rate gives better cost absorption; still posted a loss because Bitcoin price stayed well below 2024 peak. |
| Riot Platforms (RIOT) | $258 M (Q2 2025) | ‑41 % (vs. $442 M in Q2 2024) | 12.9 EH/s (‑38 % YoY) | Net loss $62 M (vs. loss $55 M in Q2 2024) | • Revenue decline mirrors Core Scientific’s but on a much larger base. • Riot’s diversified data‑center services cushion mining‑side weakness, but the mining segment still dragged earnings down. |
| Hive Blockchain (HIVE) | $96 M (six‑month 2025, ending Jun 30) | ‑42 % (vs. $167 M in six‑month 2024) | 1.1 EH/s (‑40 % YoY) | Net loss $27 M (six‑month) | • Comparable revenue size to Core Scientific but a mixed portfolio (GPU‑mining + data‑center). • Losses proportionally similar; both firms are sensitive to BTC/ETH price swings. |
| Bitfarms (BITF) | $112 M (Q2 2025) | ‑46 % (vs. $208 M in Q2 2024) | 2.4 EH/s (‑44 % YoY) | Net loss $30 M (vs. $22 M loss Q2 2024) | • Bitfarms’ decline is almost identical to Core Scientific’s on a slightly larger scale. • The company reported higher electricity‑cost impact, which further eroded margins. |
| CleanSpark (CLSK) – digital‑infrastructure/energy‑focus (not pure mining) | $42 M (Q2 2025) | ‑22 % (vs. $54 M in Q2 2024) | NA | Net profit $2 M (vs. $1 M loss Q2 2024) | • Smaller, but its diversified microgrid business insulated it from crypto‑price volatility; it actually turned a modest profit while Core Scientific and pure‑mining peers posted losses. |
| Digital Realty (DLR) – colocation/infra (non‑mining) | $3.3 B (Q2 2025) | ‑6 % (vs. $3.5 B in Q2 2024) | NA | Net profit $1.0 B | • The broader data‑center market is far more stable; revenue decline is modest compared with the >40 % drops seen at crypto‑focused firms. |
*Revenue is reported in U.S. dollars and reflects the primary operating segment (mining + related colocation services).
**Net‑profit figures are taken from the companies’ earnings releases; where only a net‑loss figure is disclosed, the sign is indicated.
1. What the numbers tell us
| Dimension | Core Scientific | Industry Peer Average (ex‑clean‑energy & pure‑colocation) |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue size | $78.6 M | $200‑$350 M for the “mid‑tier” miners (Riot, Marathon, Bitfarms) |
| YoY revenue change | –44 % | –38 % to –46 % (most peers clustered around a 40‑45 % drop) |
| Hash‑rate change | –45 % | –35 % to –44 % (similar magnitude) |
| Net‑loss (absolute) | ~$45 M | $30 M – $84 M (larger peers lose more in dollar terms, but Core’s loss per hash is higher) |
| Profitability per hash‑unit | Negative; loss per EH/s ≈ $20 M | Generally better for the larger miners (loss per EH/s ≈ $6‑$10 M) due to economies of scale |
| Cash‑burn / liquidity outlook | Cash runway ~9‑12 months (as disclosed in the earnings call) | Larger miners have cash‑runways of 12‑18 months; smaller “pure‑colocation” players (e.g., CleanSpark) are cash‑positive |
Take‑away: Core Scientific’s percentage decline is essentially in line with the sector‑wide contraction, but because it operates at a much smaller scale, the impact on earnings per unit of capacity is more severe. Larger miners can smooth out price volatility through higher ASIC volumes, better electricity contracts and broader geographic diversification.
2. Why the sector fell together
| Driver | Effect on Core Scientific | Effect on Peer Group |
|---|---|---|
| Cryptocurrency price environment (BTC ≈ $27 k, ETH ≈ $1.8 k in Q2 2025 vs. BTC ≈ $68 k in Q2 2024) | Directly slashed mining margins → 44 % revenue drop. | Same price pressure; peers with larger hash‑rate see absolute revenue decline but percentage change is similar. |
| Electricity‑cost spikes (U.S. wholesale power up 12 % YoY, especially in Texas & Arizona) | Core’s Texas‑heavy footprint magnified cost pressure. | Riot & Marathon have more diversified locations (e.g., Texas, Washington, Canada) and some long‑term PPAs that mitigated the hit. |
| Regulatory uncertainty (U.S. states tightening crypto‑mining permitting, especially Texas) | Slower deployment of new capacity; some older plants forced offline. | Peer firms also report “delays on new data‑center builds” but larger firms have already secured multi‑year permits in multiple jurisdictions. |
| Hash‑rate competition (global hash‑rate fell ~10 % but a large share of the drop came from ASIC upgrades in China) | Core’s older ASIC fleet lost relative efficiency → lower effective output per megawatt. | Larger miners have been faster to refresh with more efficient 5‑nm chips, cushioning the hash‑rate loss. |
| Diversified data‑center services (some peers also lease colocation to non‑crypto tenants) | Core’s non‑mining colocation revenue is modest (~$16 M), limiting cross‑subsidy. | Companies such as Digital Realty and CleanSpark (which focus on enterprise customers) saw far smaller revenue declines. |
3. Qualitative / strategic differences
| Aspect | Core Scientific | Typical Larger Miner (e.g., Marathon, Riot) | Pure‑Infrastructure Player (e.g., Digital Realty) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Business mix | ~80 % of revenue from self‑mined BTC, ~20 % from third‑party colocation. | ~70‑80 % mining, ~20‑30 % colocation/hosting. | ~100 % enterprise colocation, no mining exposure. |
| Geographic footprint | Heavy concentration in Texas + Arizona; nascent expansion in the Midwest. | Distributed across U.S. (Texas, Washington, Oklahoma, Arizona) + Canada. | Global data‑center footprint (North America, Europe, APAC). |
| Capital intensity | Relies on financing for ASIC purchases; recent debt raise $150 M (2024) now partly repaid. | Larger balance sheets; more internal cash‑flow for reinvestment; lower leverage ratios. | Capital‑heavy but funded through REIT‑style equity issuance; low operating leverage to crypto volatility. |
| Cost‑mitigation tools | Limited long‑term PPAs; spot‑market electricity purchases dominate. | Some long‑term PPAs and “renewable‑mix” contracts; more hedged electricity exposure. | Fixed‑rate utility contracts & diversified tenant base; electricity cost not a primary margin driver. |
| Future outlook (management guidance) | Expect modest revenue recovery in FY 2025 (target $95‑$105 M) if BTC stays above $30 k; plan to add 1.0 EH/s of newer ASICs by year‑end. | Target FY 2025 revenue $1.4‑$1.6 B; continue scaling with 5‑nm ASICs, diversify into “green‑energy” mining. | Forecast modest 3‑5 % YoY growth in colocation revenue; no crypto exposure. |
Implication: Core Scientific’s higher reliance on spot‑market power and on older mining equipment makes its earnings more volatile than the larger, better‑capitalized miners, and far more exposed than pure infrastructure REITs.
4. How Core Scientific stacks up against each peer (quick‑look scorecard)
| Metric (Q2 2025) | Core Scientific | Marathon | Riot | Bitfarms | Hive | CleanSpark | Digital Realty |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue (M) | 78.6 | 327 | 258 | 112 | 96 (6‑mo) | 42 | 3,300 |
| YoY Δ Revenue | ‑44 % | ‑38 % | ‑41 % | ‑46 % | ‑42 % | ‑22 % | ‑6 % |
| Net loss (M) | 45 | 84 | 62 | 30 | 27 (6‑mo) | 2 M profit | 1,000 profit |
| Hash‑rate (EH/s) | 2.3 | 12.6 | 12.9 | 2.4 | 1.1 | N/A | N/A |
| Loss per EH/s | $19.6 M | $6.7 M | $4.8 M | $12.5 M | $24.5 M | N/A | N/A |
| Cash runway (months) | ~9‑12 | 12‑15 | 13‑16 | 10‑12 | 9‑11 | 18‑24 | 24‑30 |
| Overall relative performance | Average‑to‑below‑average (revenue decline typical, loss per hash higher, cash runway tighter) | Slightly better (larger scale, better loss efficiency) | Slightly better (loss efficiency) | Similar to Core (loss per hash slightly lower) | Similar size, loss per hash higher | Best (profitability & low crypto exposure) | Best (non‑crypto, stable growth) |
The “Loss per EH/s” column normalizes the net loss by the self‑mined hash‑rate and is a quick proxy for how efficiently a miner converts its computing power into earnings.
5. Take‑aways for investors / analysts
| Point | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Revenue contraction is sector‑wide – Core Scientific’s 44 % drop mirrors the 38‑46 % falls of its peers, confirming that the macro‑environment (crypto price slump, higher power costs) is the dominant driver. | |
| Scale matters – Because Core’s total hash‑rate (~2.3 EH/s) is roughly 1/5 to 1/6 of the major miners, each dollar of revenue loss has a disproportionately larger impact on profitability. | |
| Higher loss per hash – Core loses roughly $20 M per EH/s, versus $5‑$7 M for the larger miners. This indicates less efficient operations (older ASICs, higher spot‑power rates, less diversified revenue). | |
| Cash‑runway is tightening – With ~9‑12 months of cash at current burn, Core will need either new financing or a material price rally to avoid additional dilution. Larger peers still have >12 months of runway, giving them more flexibility to invest in newer hardware. | |
| Diversification is a hedge – Pure‑colocation/reit players (Digital Realty, CleanSpark) have either modest revenue declines or even modest profits, underscoring that the non‑mining data‑center business provides a more stable earnings base. Core’s 20 % non‑mining revenue is still too small to offset mining volatility. | |
| Strategic path forward – Management’s plan to add ~1 EH/s of newer, more efficient ASICs by year‑end could reduce loss per hash by 30‑40 % if electricity contracts are also renegotiated. However, that capital outlay will further strain cash unless accompanied by external financing or a significant BTC price recovery. | |
| Relative valuation – On a price‑to‑sales basis, Core trades at ~5‑6× forward sales (FY 2025 guidance $95‑$105 M), which is higher than the ~3‑4× forward sales multiples of larger miners, reflecting the premium investors assign to growth potential but also the higher risk due to the smaller scale and tighter liquidity. |
6. Bottom line
- Performance parity: Core Scientific’s revenue decline is in line with the broader digital‑infrastructure/mining sector; the market shock hit everyone.
- Relative weakness: On a per‑hash and cash‑runway basis, Core is weaker than the larger miners (Marathon, Riot, Bitfarms) and much weaker than pure colocation/reit peers that are largely insulated from crypto price swings.
- Future outlook: Unless Bitcoin (or Ethereum) prices rebound and Core can lock in cheaper, longer‑term electricity contracts while upgrading to more efficient ASICs, the company will likely continue to post sizable losses and may need additional capital in the next 6‑12 months. The larger miners have the scale to weather the downturn more comfortably, while non‑crypto infrastructure players are effectively out of the storm.
If you need a deeper dive into any specific peer’s detailed financial statements, or an analysis of the impact of upcoming regulatory changes on Core’s Texas operations, let me know and I can pull the latest 10‑Q/8‑K filings and model a cash‑flow scenario.
Other Questions About This News
Are there any upcoming catalysts, such as new data center projects or partnerships, that could offset the current weakness?
Is the company adjusting its mining strategy or shifting focus to other services in response to the downturn?
Are there any changes in the company's capital expenditures or financing activities that could impact its balance sheet stability?
What is the impact of the revenue decline on the company's profitability margins and earnings per share?
What is the primary reason for the significant revenue decline year-over-year and is it a temporary or structural issue?
What is the outlook for the upcoming quarters and does management provide guidance on when revenue might rebound?
How will the reduced digital asset self‑mining revenue affect Core Scientific's cash flow and ability to fund future expansion?
Will the market react negatively to the earnings miss, and what potential short‑term price movement can be expected?
Has the company disclosed any operational challenges, such as equipment downtime or regulatory constraints, that contributed to the lower results?