vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Albemarle Corporation (ALB) and PPG Industries (PPG), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
PPG Industries is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($3.9B vs $1.4B, roughly 2.7× Albemarle Corporation). PPG Industries runs the higher net margin — -29.0% vs 7.7%, a 36.7% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, PPG Industries posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (80.8% vs 15.9%). PPG Industries produced more free cash flow last quarter ($586.0M vs $233.1M). Over the past eight quarters, Albemarle Corporation's revenue compounded faster (2.4% CAGR vs -4.7%).
Albemarle Corporation develops, manufactures, and markets engineered specialty chemicals worldwide. It operates through three segments: Lithium, Bromine, and Catalysts. The Lithium segment offers lithium compounds, including lithium carbonate, lithium hydroxide, lithium chloride, and lithium specialties; and reagents, such as butyllithium and lithium aluminum hydride for use in lithium batteries for consumer electronics and electric vehicles, high performance greases, thermoplastic elastomers...
PPG Industries, Inc. is an American supplier of paints, coatings, and specialty materials based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It operates in more than 70 countries globally. A member of the Fortune 500, PPG is the second largest coatings company in the world by revenue, behind Sherwin-Williams. It is headquartered in PPG Place, an office and retail complex in downtown Pittsburgh, and is known for its glass facade designed by Postmodern architect Philip Johnson.
ALB vs PPG — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.4B | $3.9B |
| Net Profit | $-414.2M | $300.0M |
| Gross Margin | 13.9% | 40.8% |
| Operating Margin | -15.2% | 9.9% |
| Net Margin | -29.0% | 7.7% |
| Revenue YoY | 15.9% | 80.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | -650.1% | 207.1% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-3.88 | $1.33 |
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 | $1.4B | $3.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $4.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3B | $4.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1B | $3.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.4B | $4.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.4B | $4.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.4B | $4.3B |
| Q4 25 | $-414.2M | $300.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-160.7M | $453.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $22.9M | $450.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $41.3M | $373.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $75.3M | $-280.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.1B | $468.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-188.2M | $528.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.4M | $400.0M |
| Q4 25 | 13.9% | 40.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.0% | 40.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.8% | 42.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 14.5% | 41.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.2% | 34.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | -7.7% | 41.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | -0.7% | 43.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.9% | 43.3% |
| Q4 25 | -15.2% | 9.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | -16.6% | 16.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.6% | 17.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.8% | 16.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.4% | 0.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | -81.9% | 15.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | -34.4% | 17.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | -13.2% | 15.1% |
| Q4 25 | -29.0% | 7.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | -12.3% | 11.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.7% | 10.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.8% | 10.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.1% | -12.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | -78.9% | 10.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | -13.2% | 11.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.2% | 9.3% |
| Q4 25 | $-3.88 | $1.33 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.72 | $2.00 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.16 | $1.98 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.00 | $1.63 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.29 | $-1.18 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-9.45 | $2.00 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.96 | $2.24 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.08 | $1.69 |
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 | — | $2.2B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $3.2B | $7.3B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $9.5B | $7.9B |
| Total Assets | $16.4B | $22.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.33× | 0.92× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.9B | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.8B | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.5B | $1.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.7B | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.8B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.1B | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | $3.2B | $7.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.6B | $7.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.6B | $7.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.5B | $7.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.5B | $5.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $3.6B | $6.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.5B | $6.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.5B | $6.2B |
| Q4 25 | $9.5B | $7.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.0B | $7.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.2B | $7.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $10.0B | $6.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $10.0B | $6.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $10.2B | $7.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $11.2B | $7.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $11.5B | $7.9B |
| Q4 25 | $16.4B | $22.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $17.1B | $22.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $17.3B | $22.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $17.0B | $21.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $16.6B | $19.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $17.5B | $21.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.4B | $21.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $19.0B | $21.9B |
| Q4 25 | 0.33× | 0.92× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.36× | 0.94× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.35× | 0.97× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.35× | 1.05× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.35× | 0.86× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.35× | 0.83× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.31× | 0.82× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.31× | 0.79× |
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 | $388.5M | $887.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $233.1M | $586.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 16.3% | 15.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 10.9% | 7.7% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | 2.96× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $692.5M | $1.2B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $388.5M | $887.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $355.6M | $685.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-7.2M | $387.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $545.4M | $-18.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $674.0K | $346.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $240.5M | $769.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $362.9M | $365.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $98.0M | $-60.0M |
| Q4 25 | $233.1M | $586.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $223.4M | $538.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-126.8M | $266.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $362.8M | $-227.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-355.1M | $148.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-62.6M | $620.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-84.7M | $247.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-481.4M | $-316.0M |
| Q4 25 | 16.3% | 15.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 17.1% | 13.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | -9.5% | 6.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 33.7% | -6.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | -28.8% | 6.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | -4.6% | 13.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | -5.9% | 5.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | -35.4% | -7.3% |
| Q4 25 | 10.9% | 7.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 10.1% | 3.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.0% | 2.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 17.0% | 5.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 28.9% | 9.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 22.4% | 3.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 31.3% | 2.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 42.6% | 5.9% |
| Q4 25 | — | 2.96× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.51× | ||
| Q2 25 | -0.31× | 0.86× | ||
| Q1 25 | 13.19× | -0.05× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.01× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.64× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.69× | ||
| Q1 24 | 40.01× | -0.15× |
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
ALB
| Energy Storage | $759.1M | 53% |
| Specialties | $348.9M | 24% |
| Ketjen | $320.1M | 22% |
PPG
Segment breakdown not available.
