vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Akamai Technologies (AKAM) and Lam Research (LRCX), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Lam Research is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($5.3B vs $1.1B, roughly 4.9× Akamai Technologies). Lam Research runs the higher net margin — 7.8% vs 29.8%, a 22.1% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Lam Research posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (22.1% vs 7.4%). Lam Research produced more free cash flow last quarter ($1.2B vs $234.9M). Over the past eight quarters, Lam Research's revenue compounded faster (18.7% CAGR vs 5.3%).
Akamai Technologies, Inc. provides cloud services for securing, delivering, and optimizing content and business applications over the internet in the United States and internationally. The company offers cloud solutions to keep infrastructure, websites, applications, application programming interfaces, and users safe from various cyberattacks and online threats while enhancing performance. It also provides web and mobile performance solutions to enable dynamic websites and applications; media...
Lam Research Corporation is an American supplier of wafer-fabrication equipment and related services to the semiconductor industry. Its products are used primarily in front-end wafer processing, which involves the steps that create the active components of semiconductor devices and their wiring (interconnects). The company also builds equipment for back-end wafer-level packaging (WLP) and for related manufacturing markets such as for microelectromechanical systems (MEMS).
AKAM vs LRCX — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q2 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.1B | $5.3B |
| Net Profit | $85.1M | $1.6B |
| Gross Margin | 58.7% | 49.6% |
| Operating Margin | 8.7% | 33.9% |
| Net Margin | 7.8% | 29.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 7.4% | 22.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | -39.2% | 33.8% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.57 | $1.26 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $1.1B | $5.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $5.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | $5.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | $4.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.0B | $4.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.0B | $4.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $979.6M | $3.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $987.0M | $3.8B |
| Q4 25 | $85.1M | $1.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $140.2M | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $103.6M | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $123.2M | $1.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $139.9M | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $57.9M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $131.7M | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $175.4M | $965.8M |
| Q4 25 | 58.7% | 49.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 59.3% | 50.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 59.1% | 50.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 58.7% | 49.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 59.4% | 47.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 59.3% | 48.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 58.9% | 47.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 60.0% | 47.5% |
| Q4 25 | 8.7% | 33.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 15.7% | 34.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.5% | 33.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 15.2% | 33.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.5% | 30.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.0% | 30.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 15.1% | 29.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 16.9% | 27.9% |
| Q4 25 | 7.8% | 29.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.3% | 29.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.9% | 33.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 12.1% | 28.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 13.7% | 27.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.8% | 26.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 13.4% | 26.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 17.8% | 25.5% |
| Q4 25 | $0.57 | $1.26 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.97 | $1.24 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.71 | $1.34 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.82 | $1.03 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.92 | $0.92 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.38 | $0.86 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.86 | $7.78 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.11 | $7.34 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $1.2B | $6.2B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $3.7B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $5.0B | $10.1B |
| Total Assets | $11.5B | $21.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.37× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | $6.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $6.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $966.6M | $6.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $5.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6B | $5.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.7B | $6.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6B | $5.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.7B | $5.7B |
| Q4 25 | — | $3.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $3.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $4.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $4.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $4.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $4.5B |
| Q4 25 | $5.0B | $10.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.7B | $10.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.5B | $9.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.6B | $9.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.9B | $8.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.8B | $8.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.8B | $8.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.6B | $8.0B |
| Q4 25 | $11.5B | $21.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.8B | $21.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.5B | $21.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.0B | $20.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.4B | $19.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.2B | $19.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.1B | $18.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.9B | $18.3B |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.37× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.37× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.38× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.39× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.51× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.53× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.52× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.56× |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $366.6M | $1.5B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $234.9M | $1.2B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 21.5% | 22.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 12.0% | 4.9% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 4.31× | 0.93× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $1.0B | $6.2B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $366.6M | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $441.8M | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $459.1M | $2.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $251.2M | $1.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $343.8M | $741.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $392.5M | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $431.0M | $862.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $351.9M | $1.4B |
| Q4 25 | $234.9M | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $329.1M | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $313.6M | $2.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $133.4M | $1.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $250.9M | $553.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $279.7M | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $340.0M | $761.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $258.1M | $1.3B |
| Q4 25 | 21.5% | 22.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 31.2% | 29.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 30.1% | 46.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.1% | 21.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.6% | 12.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 27.8% | 35.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 34.7% | 19.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 26.2% | 33.8% |
| Q4 25 | 12.0% | 4.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 10.7% | 3.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.9% | 3.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.6% | 6.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.1% | 4.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.2% | 2.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.3% | 2.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 9.5% | 2.7% |
| Q4 25 | 4.31× | 0.93× | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.15× | 1.13× | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.43× | 1.48× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.04× | 0.98× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.46× | 0.62× | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.78× | 1.40× | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.27× | 0.85× | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.01× | 1.43× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
AKAM
| Security | $592.4M | 54% |
| Delivery | $311.1M | 28% |
| Cloud Computing | $191.4M | 17% |
LRCX
| System | $3.4B | 63% |
| Customer Supportand Other | $2.0B | 37% |
