Brucke Turns Profitable: The Lego Dream That 9.9 Yuan Volume Cannot Complete

What are the fundamental differences between AI Bricks’ business model and LEGO?

As the leading player in China’s building block toy market, Bricks has achieved a significant increase in its reported profits over the past year.

In 2025, Bricks’ revenue reached 2.913 billion yuan, a 30.0% year-over-year increase; annual profit hit 634 million yuan, turning around from losses last year.

However, the actual strength behind this “turning losses into profits” and market expectations of it being the “Chinese LEGO” still show a noticeable gap.

In 2024, the company suffered a loss of nearly 400 million yuan, mainly due to fair value changes of pre-IPO convertible redeemable preferred shares and one-time listing expenses.

With the successful listing in 2025, these non-cash gains and losses no longer occur. But excluding this factor, the adjusted annual profit increased by 15.5% year-over-year, significantly lower than the 30% revenue growth.

The key reason is the decline in gross profit margin caused by product mix adjustments.

In 2025, the company’s gross margin dropped from 52.6% to 46.8%, a decline of nearly 6 percentage points.

During this period, Bricks promoted highly cost-effective products, with a series priced at 9.9 yuan contributing 541 million yuan in revenue, with sales reaching 122 million units, accounting for 47.8% of total sales.

This low-price expansion is more of a defensive move: now, in adult and trendy toy markets, Pop Mart continues to capture high-margin customers with original IPs; in the retail sector, TOP TOY has established a strong brand presence with its “Chinese building blocks”; additionally, niche players like Lai (Rolife) are also diverting consumer demand in model and aesthetic building segments.

The competitive landscape is still unsettled, and Bricks is still prominently labeled as the “Chinese LEGO” in the capital markets.

But if we analyze the underlying logic of their business models, Bricks and LEGO are actually quite different.

First is the difference in production models.

LEGO relies on its own factories worldwide and high-precision molds, building a highly vertical integrated supply chain system.

Its mold manufacturing precision is strictly controlled within 5 microns, ensuring that bricks produced decades ago can still seamlessly connect with today’s products.

It is also rumored that LEGO never outsources mold R&D and maintenance; all discarded molds are poured into the factory foundations, fundamentally preventing design and technology leaks.

In contrast, Bricks currently mainly adopts a “light asset” outsourced manufacturing model, working with six third-party factories. According to its plan, its first self-owned factory is expected to be completed and operational by the end of 2026.

Second is the significant difference in IP models.

LEGO’s core barrier lies in its ability to deeply develop original series and top-tier movie IPs. Bricks, on the other hand, exhibits a more obvious “IP commercialization platform” attribute, with its growth heavily dependent on external licensed IPs.

In 2025, the Transformers, Ultraman, Kamen Rider, and Hero Unlimited series contributed most of the revenue. However, its IP matrix is becoming more balanced: the Transformers series generated 951 million yuan, surpassing Ultraman for the first time to become the largest revenue IP.

Its proprietary IP “Hero Unlimited” has contributed 264 million yuan, but licensed IP sales still account for 88.5%.

While this model allows rapid customer acquisition through mature IPs, it also exposes the company to systemic risks such as license expiration, rising renewal costs, and lack of exclusivity clauses.

Going global is a key part of Bricks’ strategy to break through growth limits.

In 2025, overseas revenue reached 319 million yuan, a substantial 396.6% increase year-over-year, with the US and Indonesia becoming major growth markets.

However, Bricks’ current international expansion mainly manifests as “channel expansion”—distributing through Amazon, Walmart, Target, and other global retailers—without yet establishing a strong global content community or direct-to-consumer brand recognition.

Currently, consumers over 16 years old contribute 16.7% of revenue, showing some signs of breaking into new segments.

But to compete with global toy giants, Bricks still needs to find a path beyond just “cost-effective Chinese manufacturing,” focusing on the vitality of its own IPs, cost reduction and efficiency in self-operated factories, and building brand recognition in the global market.