The Q1 financials for UBQU and POTN are strikingly similar
They had considerably higher revenues than we did, but very similar gross margin and NI excluding depreciation. Either our product costs are much less per unit, or they have a distribution channel that leads to more sales but that that costs them a considerable cut which they record as COGS
Details on their share issuances are harder to come by in their financials than ours but their debt/preferred stock/issuance situation seems to be worse than ours at face value. Perhaps similar, but since they already have over 500M shares we certainly can't be more than two times worse.
In any case - a directly comparable peer, which should not be 6 times more valuable per share, and won't be for long.