Protalix BioTherapeutics Returns to Profitability on Half-Year Basis in Interim Filing

Bottom line

Protalix BioTherapeutics, Inc. returned to profitability across both reporting windows covered by the interim filing, with revenue, operating result, and bottom-line income each moving higher versus the prior-year comparative on a year-to-date basis. The period also marks a shift from loss to profit on a per-share basis compared with the prior six-month window, while the more recent quarter stayed profitable on a like-for-like basis. The financial statements referenced are the condensed consolidated interim statements presented under Item 1, with accompanying notes described under the cited note on significant accounting policies.

For the six-month year-to-date window of the six months ended June 30, 2026, Revenues were $53,646,000 USD, higher than the prior-year comparative Revenues of $25,771,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2025. Operating Income (Loss) for the same six-month window was $25,818,000 USD, a swing from the prior-year Operating Loss of -$2,973,000 USD. Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent for the half year was $22,094,000 USD, compared with a prior-year net loss of -$3,455,000 USD. Earnings Per Share, Diluted for the six-month window was $0.27 per diluted share USD/SHARES, against the prior-year diluted loss per share of -$0.04 per diluted share USD/SHARES.

For the three-month reporting window of the three months ended June 30, 2026, Revenues were $19,896,000 USD, higher than the prior-year quarter Revenues of $15,658,000 USD for the three months ended June 30, 2025. Operating Income (Loss) for the quarter was $4,672,000 USD, versus a prior-year quarter operating result of $1,172,000 USD. Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent for the quarter was $3,777,000 USD, compared with prior-year quarter net income of $164,000 USD. Earnings Per Share, Diluted for the quarter was $0.05 per diluted share USD/SHARES, against a near-zero prior-year quarter diluted result of $0 per diluted share USD/SHARES.

Management frames the Company as a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical group focused on rare-disease therapeutics built around the proprietary ProCellEx plant-based expression system, with a marketed portfolio of two enzyme replacement therapies and additional early-stage candidates. Management represents that existing cash and short-term bank deposits are sufficient to meet capital needs for at least the runway described in the cited liquidity discussion, and that the regional security situation referenced in the cited note has not had a material adverse effect on results to date. The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause.

The filing supports a directional reading in which both top-line revenue and operating performance improved on a year-to-date basis, with the bottom line moving from a loss to a profit on the half-year view while remaining profitable on the quarterly view. Segment-level detail is not disclosed at the level required to attribute the move to specific products or geographies. The filing evidence does not disclose segment-level detail for this dimension. No peer or industry comparison is presented in the filing evidence. The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison.

None within the filing evidence beyond the prior-year comparative figures already cited above.

The filing evidence does not provide a single-factor cause for the year-over-year changes in revenue, operating result, net income, or diluted earnings per share, and does not present segment, geographic, or peer benchmarking for this period.

Financial performance

27 per diluted share USD/SHARES. 04 per diluted share USD/SHARES. - Management explanations and accounting context (as quoted in the filing): the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements were prepared in accordance with GAAP for interim financial information and do not include all disclosures required for annual statements; the comparative balance sheet was derived from audited December year-end figures, and management states there have been no material changes in significant accounting policies since those audited statements; management states operating results for the interim period are not necessarily indicative of the full year; management expects to continue to incur significant near-term expenditures tied to research and development on product candidates; management believes cash and cash equivalents together with short-term bank deposits satisfy capital needs for at least the period stated in the source narrative from the issuance date of these financial statements; management states basic earnings (loss) per share is calculated by dividing net income (loss) by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding, with diluted EPS further adjusted for the potential dilution from options, non-vested restricted stock, and warrants under the treasury stock method; management is currently evaluating the recently issued ASU on expense disaggregation disclosures to determine the impact on consolidated disclosures and references a separate ASU on government grants received by business entities.

- Analyst inference (kept strictly within the authorized comparison set): on a year-over-year basis, Revenues were higher in the six-month period the six months ended June 30, 2026 than in the comparative period the six months ended June 30, 2025 and higher in the three-month period the three months ended June 30, 2026 than in the comparative period the three months ended June 30, 2025; Operating Income (Loss) shifted from a loss in the six-month comparative to a profit in the current six-month period, while the three-month comparison remained a profit in both years; Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent shifted from a loss in the six-month comparative to a profit in the current six-month period and remained a profit on the three-month comparison; Earnings Per Share, Diluted shifted from a loss in the six-month comparative to a profit in the current six-month period and remained a profit on the three-month comparison.

The interim filing itself does not present a sequential quarter-on-quarter reconciliation between the current three-month period and the prior three-month period in the authorized comparison set, so no quarter-on-quarter direction is asserted here. - Guidance and expectations (management-stated, not modeled): management expects continued significant near-term research and development expenditures; management believes available cash and short-term bank deposits satisfy capital needs for at least the period stated in the source narrative from the issuance date of these financial statements; management is evaluating the impact of the recent expense-disaggregation ASU on future disclosures.

- Counter-evidence and context: the source narrative flags that the Company's operations are conducted in Israel and have been exposed to ongoing regional military activity, but management states that as of the issuance date these events have not had a material adverse effect on the business, results of operations, and financial condition; the Company has designated its facilities as an essential enterprise and stores manufactured drug substance in multiple locations within and outside Israel to mitigate loss risk.

- The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause. - The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison.

Operating drivers and segments

Protalix BioTherapeutics presents a single operating footprint, with revenues and operating income (loss) reported in one consolidated stream tied to the commercialization of two enzyme replacement therapies — Elelyso and Elfabrio — together with the ProCellEx plant-cell platform that underpins both marketed products and the disclosed pipeline. There is no separately reported segment for research and development, no geographic operating segment beyond the Israel-based production footprint, and no service versus product split inside the income statement. Operating income (loss) for the three-month reporting period was a profit, higher than the prior-year comparative operating income (loss) for the same three-month window, which was also a profit. Operating income (loss) for the six-month year-to-date period was a profit, with the prior-year comparative operating income (loss) for the matching six-month window a loss. Revenues for the three-month reporting period were higher than the prior-year comparative revenues for the same three-month window. Revenues for the six-month year-to-date period were higher than the prior-year comparative revenues for the matching six-month window. Gross-to-operating reconciliation is not provided at the segment level because the Company does not disaggregate its single reportable segment, and the condensed consolidated statements presented in Item 1 do not disclose a stand-alone cost-of-revenue line or a separate research-and-development operating expense caption, which limits the visibility of margin movement by component. Management describes the Company as a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical group focused on rare diseases, with Elelyso and Elfabrio framed as the revenue anchor, ProCellEx as the proprietary expression platform, and a disclosed pipeline that includes PRX candidates aimed at uncontrolled gout and NETs-related diseases. The narrative emphasizes ongoing enhancement of the ProCellEx platform, expansion of the pipeline toward renal and other high-unmet-need indications, and continued evaluation of strategic marketing partnerships and academic collaborations. Management also reiterates that the Israel-based operations have not suffered a material adverse effect from the ongoing military and geopolitical activity referenced in the risk language, supported by the "essential enterprise" designation and dispersed drug substance storage. Forward-looking commentary flags expected significant research and development expenditures in the near term and a stated capital runway covering at least the period implied by management in the going-concern style disclosure at the close of Item 1A and the balance-sheet area of Item 1.

The authorized direction for Operating Income (Loss) on the six-month comparison is an increase, with the current period a profit and the prior-year comparative a loss, supporting the loss-to-profit transition noted in the reported comparison set. The authorized direction for Revenues on both the three-month and six-month comparisons is an increase against a positive prior period, consistent with management's framing of commercial expansion across the Elelyso and Elfabrio portfolios. The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause.

Independent analysis cannot quantify product-level mix, geographic split, or unit-volume drivers because the filing does not disaggregate revenue by therapy, region, or partner, and the unaudited condensed presentation does not present a separate cost-of-revenue or research-and-development expense line against which margins can be reassessed. The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison. The recent ASU on expense disagregation referenced in the notes to the financial statements is not yet adopted and therefore does not yet change the visible margin structure in this interim filing. Operating drivers described by management — pipeline progression, ProCellEx platform reinvestment, and the geopolitical posture in Israel — are presented as forward strategy rather than as period-specific causes, so this section does not assign them as drivers of the current revenue or operating-income movement.

Cash flow and capital

- The cash flow statement for the six months ended covered by the filing shows Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Operating Activities of $11,625,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2026, compared with -$10,291,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2025 — an authorized shift from negative operating cash burn in the prior-year window to positive operating cash generation in the current window. The direction and the loss-to-profit transition are recorded in the filing, but the line-by-line drivers behind that swing are not itemized in the quoted evidence, so The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause..

- Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Investing Activities of $588,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2026 likewise moved from the prior-year figure of -$750,000 USD, an authorized change from negative to positive. Read alongside the capital-spend figure, the positive investing line is partly mechanical — investing cash flow aggregates capital expenditures together with any proceeds from disposals or investment maturities, and the filing does not break those legs out in the quoted excerpts. - Capital spending, captured in Payments to Acquire Property, Plant, and Equipment, totaled $1,354,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2026 versus $737,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2025 — higher than the prior period on the authorized comparison, which is consistent with a development-stage biotherapeutics issuer continuing to invest in plant and equipment tied to its manufacturing platform.

- Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Financing Activities of $150,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2026 decreased from $9,180,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2025 — both periods remain positive on the authorized direction, indicating the company continued to draw on external financing but at a lower net inflow than the prior-year window. The filing does not characterize which financing instrument drove the smaller intake in the quoted passages, so the cause is left to The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause..

- On the liquidity side, the balance sheet at the balance sheet date of June 30, 2026 carries Cash and Cash Equivalents, at Carrying Value of $27,420,000 USD, against Accounts Payable, Trade, Current of $6,506,000 USD and Accounts Receivable, after Allowance for Credit Loss, Current of $16,503,000 USD. Quoted working-capital balances sit alongside that cash position; the quoted evidence does not extend to a debt schedule or to off-balance-sheet commitments, so any inference about leverage or net-cash runway beyond what these three lines show is not supported here.

- Capital allocation in the half-year window is therefore a combination of operating cash generation, continued plant investment, and a smaller but still positive financing intake. The shift to positive operating cash is the most material development in this section, since it reduces — though does not eliminate — the reliance on fresh financing to fund ongoing operations. The retirement-benefit note referenced in the source narrative — under which the Company recorded the liability resulting from this obligation on its balance sheets under "Liability for employee rights upon retirement" and subsequently amended the relevant agreements so that the Company no longer has any remaining funds or liabilities for employee rights upon retirement recognized in its balance sheet — is a non-cash balance-sheet adjustment and is not part of the cash flow statement above.

- The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison.

Peer and historical context

- Reading the year-to-date window first, the top-of-the-statement picture shifted from a loss base to a profit base. Revenues rose versus the prior-year six-month frame on a higher base, while Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent moved from a loss to a profit and Operating Income (Loss) did the same, two transitions that line up rather than contradict each other when looked at together. The financing-versus-operating pattern is also consistent with a company moving past a cash-burn stretch: Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Operating Activities for the six months swung from cash usage a year ago to cash generation now, while the investing line moved from cash outflow to cash inflow and the financing line moderated.

- The three-month window tells a quieter story. Both Revenues and Operating Income (Loss) are higher than in the prior-year quarter, and Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent stayed in profit on both sides with the current quarter above the prior-year quarter. So the quarter is not where the headline change lives; the half-year is.

That is worth flagging because it suggests the swing in the period bottom line was driven by the cumulative period rather than a single strong three-month print. - Because the filing itself does not benchmark the company against named competitors or an industry index, anything beyond the company-versus-itself framing would be invented. That limitation is the boundary of this section, and within it the half-year versus prior-year half-year comparison is the most informative lens the filing offers.

- A reasonable historical read, then, is that Protalix BioTherapeutics, Inc. has moved from a loss-making six-month base to a profitable one on both the operating and bottom lines, with operating cash flow also turning positive on the half-year compare, while the most recent quarter stays a profit-on-profit improvement at a more modest pace. Readers who want to see how a similarly clean half-year loss-to-profit transition reads in a different issuer can cross-check the structure in Lizely Finance Earnings Analysis — UFP TECHNOLOGIES INC Interim Filing: Profit-to-Profit Growth on Both Windows, which frames the same kind of transition for another small-cap interim filer.

- Counter-evidence to weigh: the prior-year half-year comparison is the only window that actually flipped sign, so the strength of the half-year improvement depends entirely on that single comparative period; if that prior-year base was unusually weak, the improvement could look better than the underlying run rate. The quarter-on-quarter gap is also smaller than the half-year gap, which is consistent with the prior-year first half carrying most of the negative weight rather than the second quarter alone. - A separate limitation: the filing does not break out revenue by product, geography, or partner, so the directional revenue gain cannot be attributed to a specific driver here, and any single-cause read would be guesswork.

Scenario analysis

- The reported revenue lines for the three-month and six-month windows are both higher than the prior-year comparatives $19,896,000 versus $15,658,000 and $53,646,000 versus $25,771,000, anchoring the central view. - Reported net income for the three-month period is a profit, higher than the prior-year comparative $3,777,000 versus $164,000, consistent with a profit-to-profit transition on that window. - Reported net income for the six-month period is a profit, compared with a loss in the prior-year comparative $22,094,000 versus -$3,455,000, consistent with a loss-to-profit transition on that window. - The base case assumes the same revenue and product mix that supported the reported half-year results continues into the next comparable reporting window, with no new regulatory or commercial disruption.

- A continued rise in revenues on both the three-month and six-month measurement bases relative to the prior-year comparatives $19,896,000 versus $15,658,000 and $53,646,000 versus $25,771,000 is the key lever. - Sustained profitability at the net-income line in the next three-month window $3,777,000 versus $164,000 would reinforce the profit-to-profit direction already observed. - The Israeli refundable R&D tax-credit regime referenced in the cited note, which permits grants for unused credits and is elected by the Company under the PTE benefit track, is a structural support that could continue to reduce the related expense when reasonable assurance conditions are met. - Receipt of cash proceeds from warrant exercises as described in the cited note would add liquidity without changing the operating trajectory described above. - A peer comparison across reporting windows of the same shape can be illustrated by REINSURANCE GROUP OF AMERICA INC Posts Higher Revenue and Net Income in Filing, which documents a profit-to-profit revenue and net income pattern across the same comparative periods.

- A reversal of the half-year revenue direction $53,646,000 versus $25,771,000 or a slowdown on the three-month basis $19,896,000 versus $15,658,000 would erode the base assumption. - The Trade Expansion Act tariffs referenced in the cited note could increase costs or limit the Company's ability to commercialize current and future products in the U.S., and the cited note states that the extent of impact is uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on results of operations. - Anti-dilutive treatment of options, restricted stock, and warrants described in the cited note for the six-month and three-month windows is a signal that reported diluted figures would not reflect potential dilution if profitability softens. - A return to a net loss on the half-year basis $22,094,000 versus -$3,455,000 would reverse the loss-to-profit transition and pressure the trajectory, with The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause. applying to any specific driver beyond the tariff and dilution references already noted. - A peer comparison for a same-direction profit and revenue pattern across two reporting windows is illustrated by Lizely Finance Earnings Analysis — UFP TECHNOLOGIES INC Interim Filing: Profit-to-Profit Growth on Both Windows, which documents profit-to-profit growth across both windows.

Risks and what to watch

S. S. The filing characterizes the ultimate effect as uncertain and possibly material to operations and financial condition, and the cited note flagged here is the same disclosure reflected in the condensed consolidated financial statements.

- A related structural risk is the Israeli R&D Law, which replaces the historical "Approved Enterprise" benefit track with a PTE-based regime. Management explains that the Company elected to waive its prior status and apply under the PTE benefit track, with eligibility to file for grants and refundable tax credits subject to conditions. Future cash flow from research-related incentives therefore depends on continued compliance and on the Company maintaining its PTE classification under the new framework.

- The Company's classification of anti-dilutive instruments in the diluted EPS denominator is noted as a recurring caveat: outstanding options, unvested restricted stock, and warrants were excluded because their effect would be anti-dilutive. The reported loss-to-profit transition on a year-to-date diluted basis should be read alongside this exclusion, The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause.. - Counter-evidence and balance-sheet items that could pressure the narrative include the existence of deferred tax assets historically supported by Israeli NOLs and the willingness of management to voluntarily exit the prior "Approved Enterprise" track after weighing multiple factors.

The filing lists these considerations without quantifying their future impact, so readers should treat the strategic shift as disclosed but not yet measurable in the periods covered by this interim report. - Operating-segment evidence is thin: the cited note indicates that the CODM reviews net income or loss on a consolidated basis, with other expenses aggregated without separate segment economics. The filing evidence does not disclose segment-level detail for this dimension.

should be assumed when comparing the Company against peers that disclose granular business-line economics. - Comparative benchmarks are not provided in the filing evidence. The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison.

for both profitability and revenue lines; readers should not infer industry position from this filing alone. - Watch list for the next reporting period: revenue trajectory on both the quarter and six-month year-to-date windows, sustainability of the year-to-date profitability transition relative to the prior-year loss, any tariff-related disclosures referencing the September effective date described in the cited note, and any grant or refundable tax credit receipt under the new R&D Law. Profit-versus-prior-year profit on the quarter is informative on durability but does not yet establish a trend, The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause..

- Editorial note: this analysis is constrained to the cited interim disclosure and does not incorporate outside market data.