vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Palo Alto Networks (PANW), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Advanced Micro Devices is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($10.3B vs $2.6B, roughly 4.0× Palo Alto Networks). Palo Alto Networks runs the higher net margin — 14.7% vs 16.7%, a 1.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Advanced Micro Devices posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (34.1% vs 14.9%). Advanced Micro Devices produced more free cash flow last quarter ($2.4B vs $384.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Advanced Micro Devices's revenue compounded faster (37.0% CAGR vs 14.3%).
Advanced Micro DevicesAMDEarnings & Financial Report
Advanced Micro Foundry (AMF) is a Singapore-based manufacturer of microelectronic chips. AMF is involved in silicon photonics. They produce devices like high-speed modulators, photodetectors, micro-rings and optical couplers. AMF had in 2019 0.13um CMOS technology to produce a Germanium-made photodetector with a bandwidth over 35GHz and a dark current below 100nA. AMF has partnered with CMC Microelectronics since 2012. AMF also provides silicon nitride technology.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. is an American multinational cybersecurity company with headquarters in Santa Clara, California. The core product is a platform that includes advanced firewalls and cloud-based offerings that extend those firewalls to cover other aspects of security. The company serves over 70,000 organizations in over 150 countries, including 85 of the Fortune 100. It is home to the Unit 42 threat research team and hosts the Ignite cybersecurity conference.
AMD vs PANW — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q2 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $10.3B | $2.6B |
| Net Profit | $1.5B | $432.0M |
| Gross Margin | 54.3% | 73.6% |
| Operating Margin | 17.1% | 15.3% |
| Net Margin | 14.7% | 16.7% |
| Revenue YoY | 34.1% | 14.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | 213.5% | 61.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.92 | $0.61 |
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.
| Q1 26 | — | $2.6B | ||
| Q4 25 | $10.3B | $2.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $9.2B | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.7B | $2.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.4B | $2.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.7B | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.8B | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.8B | $2.0B |
| Q1 26 | — | $432.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.5B | $334.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $253.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $872.0M | $262.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $709.0M | $267.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $482.0M | $350.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $771.0M | $357.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $265.0M | $278.8M |
| Q1 26 | — | 73.6% | ||
| Q4 25 | 54.3% | 74.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 51.7% | 73.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 39.8% | 72.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 50.2% | 73.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 50.7% | 74.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 50.1% | 73.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 49.1% | 74.1% |
| Q1 26 | — | 15.3% | ||
| Q4 25 | 17.1% | 12.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.7% | 19.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | -1.7% | 9.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.8% | 10.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.4% | 13.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 10.6% | 10.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.6% | 8.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | 16.7% | ||
| Q4 25 | 14.7% | 13.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 13.4% | 10.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.3% | 11.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.5% | 11.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.3% | 16.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.3% | 16.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.5% | 14.0% |
| Q1 26 | — | $0.61 | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.92 | $0.47 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.75 | $-0.14 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.54 | $0.37 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.44 | $0.38 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.30 | $0.99 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.47 | $1.04 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.16 | $0.79 |
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 | $10.6B | $4.5B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $63.0B | $9.4B |
| Total Assets | $76.9B | $25.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | $4.5B | ||
| Q4 25 | $10.6B | $4.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.2B | $2.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.9B | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.3B | $3.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.1B | $3.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.5B | $2.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.3B | $2.9B |
| Q1 26 | — | $9.4B | ||
| Q4 25 | $63.0B | $8.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $60.8B | $7.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $59.7B | $7.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $57.9B | $6.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $57.6B | $5.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $57.0B | $5.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $56.5B | $4.5B |
| Q1 26 | — | $25.0B | ||
| Q4 25 | $76.9B | $23.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $76.9B | $23.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $74.8B | $22.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $71.5B | $21.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $69.2B | $20.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $69.6B | $20.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $67.9B | $17.9B |
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 | $2.6B | $554.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $2.4B | $384.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 23.2% | 14.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.2% | 6.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.72× | 1.28× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $6.7B | $3.6B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | $554.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.6B | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.2B | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.0B | $628.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $939.0M | $556.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.3B | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $628.0M | $512.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $593.0M | $528.9M |
| Q1 26 | — | $384.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.4B | $1.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.9B | $934.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.7B | $560.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $727.0M | $509.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $496.0M | $465.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $439.0M | $491.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | 14.8% | ||
| Q4 25 | 23.2% | 68.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.6% | 36.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 22.5% | 24.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 9.8% | 22.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.2% | 68.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.3% | 21.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.5% | 24.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | 6.6% | ||
| Q4 25 | 2.2% | 3.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.8% | 3.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.7% | 3.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.9% | 2.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.7% | 2.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.9% | 2.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.6% | 1.9% |
| Q1 26 | — | 1.28× | ||
| Q4 25 | 1.72× | 5.30× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.74× | 4.02× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.31× | 2.40× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.32× | 2.08× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.70× | 4.30× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.81× | 1.43× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.24× | 1.90× |
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
AMD
| Other | $5.4B | 52% |
| Client | $3.1B | 30% |
| Embedded | $950.0M | 9% |
| Gaming | $843.0M | 8% |
PANW
| Subscription | $1.4B | 54% |
| Support | $676.0M | 26% |
| Products | $514.0M | 20% |
