vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP (AP) and CLEANSPARK, INC. (CLSK). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
CLEANSPARK, INC. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($181.2M vs $104.4M, roughly 1.7× AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP). AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP runs the higher net margin — -55.2% vs -209.0%, a 153.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, CLEANSPARK, INC. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (11.6% vs 11.5%). AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP produced more free cash flow last quarter ($-64.0K vs $-198.1M). Over the past eight quarters, CLEANSPARK, INC.'s revenue compounded faster (106.4% 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...
CleanSpark, Inc. is a U.S.-headquartered sustainable technology company operating two core business segments: low-carbon Bitcoin mining powered primarily by renewable and stranded energy resources, and end-to-end microgrid design, deployment, and operation services for commercial, industrial, and public sector clients across North America.
AP vs CLSK — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $104.4M | $181.2M |
| Net Profit | $-57.7M | $-378.7M |
| Gross Margin | — | 47.2% |
| Operating Margin | -54.0% | -174.7% |
| Net Margin | -55.2% | -209.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 11.5% | 11.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | -1958.9% | -253.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-2.87 | — |
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 | $181.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $103.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $108.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $93.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $92.1M | $89.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $107.1M | $104.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $110.0M | $111.8M |
| Q4 25 | $-57.7M | $-378.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-7.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-2.0M | $-62.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0M | $-236.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-2.7M | $126.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | 47.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 36.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 56.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 69.3% |
| Q4 25 | -54.0% | -174.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.0% | -73.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.7% | -239.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.1% | — |
| Q4 25 | -55.2% | -209.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | -2.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -6.7% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.1% | -69.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | -226.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -2.5% | 113.4% |
| Q4 25 | $-2.87 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.11 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.36 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.06 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.16 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.10 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.10 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.14 | — |
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 | $458.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $117.9M | $1.8B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $32.6M | $1.4B |
| Total Assets | $495.4M | $3.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 3.61× | 1.29× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $10.7M | $458.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $15.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $15.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8M | $121.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.9M | $126.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.8M | — |
| Q4 25 | $117.9M | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $119.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $115.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $115.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $116.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $116.0M | $7.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $119.4M | $1.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $116.2M | $5.1M |
| Q4 25 | $32.6M | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $60.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $62.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $64.6M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $58.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $61.3M | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $58.0M | $1.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $56.3M | $1.5B |
| Q4 25 | $495.4M | $3.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $524.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $537.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $536.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $530.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $547.4M | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $560.8M | $1.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $565.8M | $1.5B |
| Q4 25 | 3.61× | 1.29× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.98× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.85× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.78× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.98× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.89× | 0.00× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.06× | 0.00× | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.06× | 0.00× |
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 | $-161.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-64.0K | $-198.1M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -0.1% | -109.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.7% | 20.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-8.1M | $-626.9M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $2.7M | $-161.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.3M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-5.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.5M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.4M | $-233.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-5.3M | $-58.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.5M | $-44.8M |
| Q4 25 | $-64.0K | $-198.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-3.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-7.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.4M | $-299.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-8.0M | $-68.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.7M | $-60.3M |
| Q4 25 | -0.1% | -109.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -7.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.1% | -335.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | -7.5% | -66.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.5% | -54.0% |
| Q4 25 | 2.7% | 20.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.2% | 74.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.5% | 9.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.6% | 13.8% |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -4.62× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.40× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.64× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -0.35× |
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% |
CLSK
Segment breakdown not available.
