vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Ambiq Micro, Inc. (AMBQ) and Himalaya Shipping Ltd. (HSHP). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Himalaya Shipping Ltd. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($29.9M vs $18.2M, roughly 1.6× Ambiq Micro, Inc.). Himalaya Shipping Ltd. runs the higher net margin — 3.7% vs -49.6%, a 53.2% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Ambiq Micro, Inc. is an American semiconductor company specializing in low-power microcontrollers and systems-on-chip, including products for devices smartwatches, medical devices, and sensors. Founded in 2010 by University of Michigan researchers Scott Hanson, David Blaauw, and Dennis Sylvester, the company is headquartered in Austin, Texas. Its products employ Subthreshold Power Optimized Technology (SPOT) to reduce energy consumption and enable on-device edge AI. In 2025, Ambiq went public...
Himalaya Shipping Ltd. is a global maritime transportation enterprise focused on dry bulk shipping operations. It operates a fleet of modern, fuel-efficient bulk carriers that transport key commodities including iron ore, coal, grain and other bulk raw materials, serving core trade routes across Asia, Europe, and the Americas to support global industrial and agricultural supply chain flows.
AMBQ vs HSHP — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q2 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $18.2M | $29.9M |
| Net Profit | $-9.0M | $1.1M |
| Gross Margin | 42.3% | 76.3% |
| Operating Margin | -55.3% | 45.5% |
| Net Margin | -49.6% | 3.7% |
| Revenue YoY | — | -4.2% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | -84.1% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.72 | $0.02 |
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.
| Q3 25 | $18.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $17.9M | $29.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $31.2M |
| Q3 25 | $-9.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-8.5M | $1.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $6.9M |
| Q3 25 | 42.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 40.1% | 76.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 82.1% |
| Q3 25 | -55.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -49.2% | 45.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 56.1% |
| Q3 25 | -49.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -47.5% | 3.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 22.1% |
| Q3 25 | $-0.72 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-18.89 | $0.02 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $0.16 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $146.5M | $24.7M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $701.3M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $169.8M | $159.3M |
| Total Assets | $186.7M | $871.9M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 4.40× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | $146.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $47.5M | $24.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $21.9M |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $701.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $725.5M |
| Q3 25 | $169.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-307.3M | $159.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $157.2M |
| Q3 25 | $186.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $89.2M | $871.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $897.3M |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 4.40× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 4.61× |
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 | $-5.0M | $8.3M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 7.55× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | $-5.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-10.5M | $8.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $17.6M |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 7.55× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 2.55× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
AMBQ
| Customer Concentration Risk | $16.2M | 89% |
| Other | $2.0M | 11% |
HSHP
Segment breakdown not available.
