vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP (AP) and Burke & Herbert Financial Services Corp. (BHRB). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($104.4M vs $86.5M, roughly 1.2× Burke & Herbert Financial Services Corp.). Burke & Herbert Financial Services Corp. runs the higher net margin — 34.9% vs -55.2%, a 90.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (11.5% vs 4.9%). Burke & Herbert Financial Services Corp. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($96.2M vs $-64.0K). Over the past eight quarters, Burke & Herbert Financial Services Corp.'s revenue compounded faster (81.1% CAGR vs -2.6%).
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation is a specialty steel manufacturer headquartered in Downtown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It is one of several companies to bear the Ampco name, and it should not be confused with the Milwaukee-based copper base alloy producer, Ampco Metal Inc.; the Miami-based cabinetry company; the Swiss aluminum corporation; or the Dallas-based tool company. Ampco was formed in 1929 and is a conglomerate made up of several previously established small steel makers. Five small compa...
Burke & Herbert Financial Services Corp is a U.S.-based regional financial holding company, offering personal and commercial banking, wealth management, residential mortgage lending, and small business financing services. Its core market covers Virginia and adjacent Mid-Atlantic regions, serving retail consumers, SMEs, and high-net-worth clients.
AP vs BHRB — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $104.4M | $86.5M |
| Net Profit | $-57.7M | $30.2M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -54.0% | 43.8% |
| Net Margin | -55.2% | 34.9% |
| Revenue YoY | 11.5% | 4.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | -1958.9% | 52.8% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-2.87 | $1.98 |
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.
| Q4 25 | $104.4M | $86.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $103.7M | $85.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $108.9M | $87.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.2M | $83.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $93.6M | $82.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $92.1M | $83.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $107.1M | $69.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $110.0M | $26.4M |
| Q4 25 | $-57.7M | $30.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.2M | $30.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-7.3M | $29.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1M | $27.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.1M | $19.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-2.0M | $27.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0M | $-16.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-2.7M | $5.2M |
| Q4 25 | -54.0% | 43.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.1% | 43.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.8% | 42.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.9% | 39.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.5% | 24.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.0% | 39.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.7% | -27.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.1% | 22.3% |
| Q4 25 | -55.2% | 34.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | -2.1% | 35.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | -6.7% | 34.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.2% | 32.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.3% | 24.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.1% | 33.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | -24.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | -2.5% | 19.8% |
| Q4 25 | $-2.87 | $1.98 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.11 | $1.97 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.36 | $1.97 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.06 | $1.80 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.16 | $1.72 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.10 | $1.82 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.10 | $-1.41 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.14 | $0.69 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $10.7M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $117.9M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $32.6M | $854.6M |
| Total Assets | $495.4M | $7.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 3.61× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $10.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $15.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $15.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.9M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.8M | — |
| Q4 25 | $117.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $119.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $115.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $115.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $116.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $116.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $119.4M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $116.2M | — |
| Q4 25 | $32.6M | $854.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $60.1M | $822.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $62.7M | $780.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $64.6M | $758.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $58.9M | $730.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $61.3M | $738.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $58.0M | $693.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $56.3M | $319.3M |
| Q4 25 | $495.4M | $7.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $524.4M | $7.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $537.2M | $8.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $536.2M | $7.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $530.9M | $7.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $547.4M | $7.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $560.8M | $7.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $565.8M | $3.7B |
| Q4 25 | 3.61× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.98× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.85× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.78× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.98× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.89× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.06× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.06× | — |
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 | $2.7M | $107.9M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-64.0K | $96.2M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -0.1% | 111.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.7% | 13.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 3.57× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-8.1M | $164.1M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $2.7M | $107.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.3M | $39.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.3M | $41.0K | ||
| Q1 25 | $-5.3M | $37.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.5M | $85.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.4M | $47.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-5.3M | $-46.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.5M | $7.1M |
| Q4 25 | $-64.0K | $96.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3M | $35.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-3.8M | $-3.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-7.5M | $35.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.7M | $81.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.4M | $46.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-8.0M | $-47.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.7M | $5.6M |
| Q4 25 | -0.1% | 111.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.2% | 41.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.5% | -3.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -7.5% | 43.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | 98.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.1% | 55.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | -7.5% | -67.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.5% | 21.2% |
| Q4 25 | 2.7% | 13.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.9% | 4.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.3% | 3.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.2% | 2.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | 5.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.2% | 2.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.5% | 1.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.6% | 5.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | 3.57× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.31× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.00× | ||
| Q1 25 | -4.62× | 1.38× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.40× | 4.33× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.73× | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.64× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.36× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
AP
| Forged And Cast Mill Rolls | $67.0M | 64% |
| Air Handling Systems | $14.3M | 14% |
| Heat Exchange Coils | $13.1M | 13% |
| Centrifugal Pumps | $10.3M | 10% |
| Forged Engineered Products | $4.0M | 4% |
BHRB
Segment breakdown not available.
