vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Applied Materials (AMAT) and Verisign (VRSN), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Applied Materials is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($6.8B vs $425.3M, roughly 16.0× Verisign). Verisign runs the higher net margin — 27.9% vs 48.5%, a 20.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Verisign posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (7.6% vs -3.5%). Applied Materials produced more free cash flow last quarter ($2.0B vs $285.1M). Over the past eight quarters, Verisign's revenue compounded faster (5.2% CAGR vs 0.7%).
Applied Materials, Inc. is an American corporation that supplies equipment, services and software for the manufacture of semiconductor chips for electronics, flat panel displays for computers, smartphones, televisions, and solar products. The company also supplies equipment to produce coatings for flexible electronics, packaging and other applications. The company is headquartered in Santa Clara, California, and is the second largest supplier of semiconductor equipment in the world based on r...
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.
AMAT vs VRSN — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $6.8B | $425.3M |
| Net Profit | $1.9B | $206.2M |
| Gross Margin | 48.0% | 88.5% |
| Operating Margin | 25.2% | 67.0% |
| Net Margin | 27.9% | 48.5% |
| Revenue YoY | -3.5% | 7.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | 9.6% | 7.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.36 | — |
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 | $6.8B | $425.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.3B | $419.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.1B | $409.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.2B | $402.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.0B | $395.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.8B | $390.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.6B | $387.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.7B | $384.3M |
| Q4 25 | $1.9B | $206.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.8B | $212.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.1B | $207.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.2B | $199.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.7B | $191.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.7B | $201.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.7B | $198.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.0B | $194.1M |
| Q4 25 | 48.0% | 88.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 48.8% | 88.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 49.1% | 88.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 48.8% | 87.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 47.3% | 87.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 47.3% | 88.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 47.4% | 87.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 47.8% | 87.2% |
| Q4 25 | 25.2% | 67.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 30.6% | 67.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 30.5% | 68.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 30.4% | 67.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 29.0% | 66.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 28.7% | 68.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 28.8% | 68.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 29.3% | 67.4% |
| Q4 25 | 27.9% | 48.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 24.4% | 50.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 30.1% | 50.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 16.5% | 49.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.6% | 48.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 25.2% | 51.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 25.9% | 51.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 30.1% | 50.5% |
| Q4 25 | $2.36 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.22 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.63 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.45 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.09 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.05 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.06 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.41 | — |
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 | $8.6B | $580.5M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $20.4B | $-2.2B |
| Total Assets | $36.3B | $1.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $8.6B | $580.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.0B | $617.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.7B | $593.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.2B | $648.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.5B | $599.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $9.1B | $644.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.6B | $689.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $7.5B | $924.7M |
| Q4 25 | $20.4B | $-2.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $19.5B | $-2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $19.0B | $-2.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $18.6B | $-2.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.0B | $-2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $18.8B | $-1.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.2B | $-1.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $17.4B | $-1.6B |
| Q4 25 | $36.3B | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $34.2B | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $33.6B | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $33.3B | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $34.4B | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $33.6B | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $31.9B | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $31.5B | $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 | $2.8B | $289.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $2.0B | $285.1M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 30.0% | 67.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 11.5% | 1.1% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.49× | 1.40× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $5.7B | $1.1B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $2.8B | $289.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.6B | $307.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.6B | $202.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $925.0M | $291.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.6B | $231.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.4B | $253.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.4B | $160.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.3B | $257.3M |
| Q4 25 | $2.0B | $285.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.0B | $303.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $194.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $544.0M | $285.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.2B | $222.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.1B | $247.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $151.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.1B | $253.5M |
| Q4 25 | 30.0% | 67.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 28.1% | 72.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.9% | 47.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.6% | 71.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 30.8% | 56.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 30.8% | 63.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 17.1% | 39.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 31.3% | 66.0% |
| Q4 25 | 11.5% | 1.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.0% | 1.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 7.2% | 1.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.3% | 1.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.8% | 2.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.4% | 1.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.9% | 2.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.4% | 1.0% |
| Q4 25 | 1.49× | 1.40× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.48× | 1.45× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.74× | 0.98× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.78× | 1.46× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.49× | 1.21× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.40× | 1.26× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.81× | 0.81× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.15× | 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
AMAT
| Semiconductor Systems Segment | $4.8B | 70% |
| Applied Global Services Segment | $1.6B | 24% |
| Other | $415.0M | 6% |
VRSN
Segment breakdown not available.
