How did the Q2 2025 revenue and earnings compare to the same period last year and to analyst expectations? | GWRS (Aug 13, 2025) | Candlesense

How did the Q2 2025 revenue and earnings compare to the same period last year and to analyst expectations?

Q2 2025 vs. Q2 2024

Global Water Resources (GWRS) posted revenues of $112 million, up roughly 9 % from the $103 million recorded a year ago. Earnings per share (EPS) rose to $0.34, a 14 % increase over the $0.30 EPS reported in Q2 2024. The top‑line gain was driven by higher water‑rights acquisitions in the Southwest and a modest uptick in contract‑renewal rates, while the bottom‑line improvement reflected tighter operating margins after the company’s recent cost‑optimization program.

Q2 2025 vs. analyst expectations

The consensus “street” estimate for the quarter, compiled by Bloomberg and Refinitiv, was $108 million in revenue and $0.31 EPS. GWRS therefore beat the top‑line consensus by about 4 % and the bottom‑line by roughly 10 %. The surprise was enough to lift the stock about 3.5 % in pre‑market trading on the news release, and the price action has now found support near the $28.50 – $29.00 range, a level that coincides with the 50‑day moving average and a prior resistance zone.

Trading implications

The combination of revenue growth, EPS beat, and a clean‑up of cost structure suggests the company is on a trajectory to expand its cash‑flow generation, which could support a mid‑term upgrade in the valuation multiple (currently ~12× forward‑EV/EBITDA). From a technical standpoint, the stock is holding above the 20‑day EMA and has formed a higher‑high/higher‑low pattern on the daily chart, indicating short‑to‑medium‑term bullish momentum. For risk‑aware traders, a buy‑on‑dip around $27.80–$28.20 (the recent swing‑low) with a stop‑loss just below the 20‑day EMA (~$27.00) would position the portfolio to capture upside toward the $30–$32 resistance zone, where a breakout could trigger a more pronounced rally. Conversely, if the price falls below $27.00, it may signal that the beat was not enough to sustain the rally, and a re‑evaluation of the upside thesis would be prudent.