vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES INC (AIT) and Pure Storage, Inc. (PSTG). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES INC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.3B vs $964.5M, roughly 1.3× Pure Storage, Inc.). APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES INC runs the higher net margin — 8.0% vs 5.7%, a 2.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Pure Storage, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (16.0% vs 7.3%). APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES INC produced more free cash flow last quarter ($95.4M vs $52.6M). Over the past eight quarters, Pure Storage, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (10.5% CAGR vs 3.8%).
Applied Industrial Technologies, Inc. (AIT) is a public, global company based in the U.S. and focused on the distribution of bearings, power transmission products, engineered fluid power components and systems, specialty flow control products, and other industrial supplies. AIT provides engineering, design and system integration for industrial and fluid power applications, as well as customized mechanical, fabricated rubber, fluid power, and flow control shop services.
Pure Storage, Inc. is an American publicly traded technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, United States. It develops all-flash data storage hardware and software products. Pure Storage was founded in 2009 and developed its products in stealth mode until 2011. Afterwards, the company grew in revenues by about 50% per quarter and raised more than $470 million in venture capital funding, before going public in 2015. Initially, Pure Storage developed the software for storage ...
AIT vs PSTG — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2026 vs Q3 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.3B | $964.5M |
| Net Profit | $99.8M | $54.8M |
| Gross Margin | 30.4% | 72.3% |
| Operating Margin | 11.0% | 5.6% |
| Net Margin | 8.0% | 5.7% |
| Revenue YoY | 7.3% | 16.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | -0.0% | -13.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.65 | $0.16 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history. Quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q1 26 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | $964.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $861.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $778.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $879.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | $831.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $763.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.2B | $693.5M |
| Q1 26 | $99.8M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $95.3M | $54.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $100.8M | $47.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $107.8M | $-14.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.8M | $42.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $93.3M | $63.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $92.1M | $35.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $103.5M | $-35.0M |
| Q1 26 | 30.4% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 30.4% | 72.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 30.1% | 70.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 30.6% | 68.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 30.5% | 67.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 30.6% | 70.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 29.6% | 70.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 30.7% | 71.5% |
| Q1 26 | 11.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 10.6% | 5.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 10.8% | 0.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.0% | -4.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.1% | 4.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.3% | 7.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.3% | 3.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.0% | -6.0% |
| Q1 26 | 8.0% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 8.2% | 5.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.4% | 5.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 8.8% | -1.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 8.6% | 4.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.7% | 7.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 8.4% | 4.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 8.9% | -5.0% |
| Q1 26 | $2.65 | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.51 | $0.16 | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.63 | $0.14 | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.80 | $-0.04 | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.57 | $0.13 | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.39 | $0.19 | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.36 | $0.10 | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.64 | $-0.11 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $171.6M | $852.8M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $365.3M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.9B | $1.4B |
| Total Assets | $3.0B | $4.2B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.20× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $171.6M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $406.0M | $852.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $418.7M | $887.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $388.4M | $739.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $352.8M | $723.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $303.4M | $894.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $538.5M | $965.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $460.6M | $900.6M |
| Q1 26 | $365.3M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
| Q1 26 | $1.9B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.9B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.9B | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.8B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.8B | $1.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.8B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.8B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.7B | $1.4B |
| Q1 26 | $3.0B | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $3.2B | $4.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.2B | $4.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.2B | $3.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.1B | $4.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.0B | $3.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.0B | $3.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.0B | $3.6B |
| Q1 26 | 0.20× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Cash flow is harder to manipulate than net income.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $319.1M | $116.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $95.4M | $52.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 7.6% | 5.5% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 1.5% | 6.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 3.20× | 2.12× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $438.9M | $566.7M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | $319.1M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $99.7M | $116.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $119.3M | $212.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $147.0M | $283.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $122.5M | $208.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $95.1M | $97.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $127.7M | $226.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $119.2M | $221.5M |
| Q1 26 | $95.4M | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $93.4M | $52.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $112.0M | $150.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $138.2M | $211.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $114.9M | $152.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $89.9M | $35.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $122.2M | $166.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $111.7M | $172.7M |
| Q1 26 | 7.6% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 8.0% | 5.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.3% | 17.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.3% | 27.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.8% | 17.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.4% | 4.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.1% | 21.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.6% | 24.9% |
| Q1 26 | 1.5% | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.5% | 6.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.6% | 7.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.7% | 9.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.6% | 6.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.5% | 7.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.5% | 7.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.6% | 7.0% |
| Q1 26 | 3.20× | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.05× | 2.12× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.18× | 4.50× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.36× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.23× | 4.91× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.02× | 1.52× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.39× | 6.35× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.15× | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
AIT
Segment breakdown not available.
PSTG
| US | $683.2M | 71% |
| Non Us | $281.3M | 29% |
