vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Akamai Technologies (AKAM) and Verisign (VRSN), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Akamai Technologies is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.1B vs $425.3M, roughly 2.6× Verisign). Verisign runs the higher net margin — 7.8% vs 48.5%, a 40.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Verisign posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (7.6% vs 7.4%). Verisign produced more free cash flow last quarter ($285.1M vs $234.9M). Over the past eight quarters, Akamai Technologies's revenue compounded faster (5.3% CAGR vs 5.2%).
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...
Verisign, Inc. is an American company based in Reston, Virginia, that operates a diverse array of network infrastructure, including two of the Internet's thirteen root nameservers, the authoritative registry for the .com, .net, and .name generic top-level domains and the .cc country-code top-level domains, and the back-end systems for the .jobs and .edu sponsored top-level domains.
AKAM vs VRSN — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.1B | $425.3M |
| Net Profit | $85.1M | $206.2M |
| Gross Margin | 58.7% | 88.5% |
| Operating Margin | 8.7% | 67.0% |
| Net Margin | 7.8% | 48.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 7.4% | 7.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | -39.2% | 7.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.57 | — |
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 | $425.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $419.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | $409.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | $402.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.0B | $395.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.0B | $390.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $979.6M | $387.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $987.0M | $384.3M |
| Q4 25 | $85.1M | $206.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $140.2M | $212.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $103.6M | $207.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $123.2M | $199.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $139.9M | $191.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $57.9M | $201.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $131.7M | $198.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $175.4M | $194.1M |
| Q4 25 | 58.7% | 88.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 59.3% | 88.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 59.1% | 88.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 58.7% | 87.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 59.4% | 87.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 59.3% | 88.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 58.9% | 87.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 60.0% | 87.2% |
| Q4 25 | 8.7% | 67.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 15.7% | 67.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.5% | 68.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 15.2% | 67.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.5% | 66.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.0% | 68.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 15.1% | 68.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 16.9% | 67.4% |
| Q4 25 | 7.8% | 48.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.3% | 50.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.9% | 50.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 12.1% | 49.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 13.7% | 48.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.8% | 51.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 13.4% | 51.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 17.8% | 50.5% |
| Q4 25 | $0.57 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.97 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.71 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.82 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.92 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.38 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.86 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.11 | — |
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 | $580.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $5.0B | $-2.2B |
| Total Assets | $11.5B | $1.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $1.2B | $580.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $617.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $966.6M | $593.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $648.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6B | $599.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.7B | $644.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6B | $689.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.7B | $924.7M |
| Q4 25 | $5.0B | $-2.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.7B | $-2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.5B | $-2.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.6B | $-2.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.9B | $-2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.8B | $-1.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.8B | $-1.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.6B | $-1.6B |
| Q4 25 | $11.5B | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.8B | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.5B | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.0B | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.4B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.2B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $10.1B | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.9B | $1.7B |
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 | $289.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $234.9M | $285.1M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 21.5% | 67.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 12.0% | 1.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 4.31× | 1.40× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $1.0B | $1.1B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $366.6M | $289.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $441.8M | $307.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $459.1M | $202.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $251.2M | $291.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $343.8M | $231.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $392.5M | $253.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $431.0M | $160.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $351.9M | $257.3M |
| Q4 25 | $234.9M | $285.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $329.1M | $303.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $313.6M | $194.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $133.4M | $285.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $250.9M | $222.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $279.7M | $247.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $340.0M | $151.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $258.1M | $253.5M |
| Q4 25 | 21.5% | 67.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 31.2% | 72.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 30.1% | 47.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.1% | 71.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.6% | 56.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 27.8% | 63.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 34.7% | 39.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 26.2% | 66.0% |
| Q4 25 | 12.0% | 1.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 10.7% | 1.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.9% | 1.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.6% | 1.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.1% | 2.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.2% | 1.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.3% | 2.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 9.5% | 1.0% |
| Q4 25 | 4.31× | 1.40× | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.15× | 1.45× | ||
| Q2 25 | 4.43× | 0.98× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.04× | 1.46× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.46× | 1.21× | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.78× | 1.26× | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.27× | 0.81× | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.01× | 1.33× |
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% |
VRSN
Segment breakdown not available.
