vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP (AP) and FOSTER L B CO (FSTR). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
FOSTER L B CO is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($160.4M vs $104.4M, roughly 1.5× AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP). FOSTER L B CO runs the higher net margin — 1.5% vs -55.2%, a 56.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, FOSTER L B CO posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (25.1% vs 11.5%). FOSTER L B CO produced more free cash flow last quarter ($19.8M vs $-64.0K). Over the past eight quarters, FOSTER L B CO's revenue compounded faster (13.6% 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...
Foster L B Co. is a U.S.-headquartered industrial manufacturing firm that develops, produces and distributes engineered access solutions, construction components, and rail infrastructure products. It serves commercial construction, transportation, and industrial end markets across North America and selected international regions.
AP vs FSTR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $104.4M | $160.4M |
| Net Profit | $-57.7M | $2.4M |
| Gross Margin | — | 19.7% |
| Operating Margin | -54.0% | 4.9% |
| Net Margin | -55.2% | 1.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 11.5% | 25.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | -1958.9% | 1098.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-2.87 | $0.22 |
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 | $160.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $103.7M | $138.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $108.9M | $143.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.2M | $97.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $93.6M | $128.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $92.1M | $137.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $107.1M | $140.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $110.0M | $124.3M |
| Q4 25 | $-57.7M | $2.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.2M | $4.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-7.3M | $2.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1M | $-2.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.1M | $-242.0K | ||
| Q3 24 | $-2.0M | $35.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0M | $2.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-2.7M | $4.4M |
| Q4 25 | — | 19.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 22.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 21.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 20.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 22.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 23.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 21.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 21.1% |
| Q4 25 | -54.0% | 4.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.1% | 6.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.8% | 5.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.9% | -2.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.5% | 2.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.0% | 5.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.7% | 3.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.1% | 4.5% |
| Q4 25 | -55.2% | 1.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | -2.1% | 3.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | -6.7% | 2.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.2% | -2.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.3% | -0.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.1% | 26.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | 2.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | -2.5% | 3.6% |
| Q4 25 | $-2.87 | $0.22 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.11 | $0.40 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.36 | $0.27 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.06 | $-0.20 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.16 | $-0.04 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.10 | $3.27 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.10 | $0.26 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.14 | $0.40 |
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 | $4.3M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $117.9M | $42.6M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $32.6M | $175.3M |
| Total Assets | $495.4M | $330.4M |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 3.61× | 0.24× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $10.7M | $4.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $15.0M | $3.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.9M | $4.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.1M | $2.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $15.4M | $2.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8M | $3.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.9M | $4.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.8M | $3.1M |
| Q4 25 | $117.9M | $42.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $119.0M | $58.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $115.9M | $81.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $115.0M | $82.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $116.4M | $46.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $116.0M | $68.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $119.4M | $87.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $116.2M | $77.9M |
| Q4 25 | $32.6M | $175.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $60.1M | $174.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $62.7M | $174.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $64.6M | $170.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $58.9M | $178.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $61.3M | $181.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $58.0M | $147.1M | ||
| Q1 24 | $56.3M | $144.6M |
| Q4 25 | $495.4M | $330.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $524.4M | $333.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $537.2M | $349.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $536.2M | $342.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $530.9M | $334.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $547.4M | $344.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $560.8M | $333.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $565.8M | $326.4M |
| Q4 25 | 3.61× | 0.24× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.98× | 0.33× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.85× | 0.47× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.78× | 0.48× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.98× | 0.26× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.89× | 0.38× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.06× | 0.59× | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.06× | 0.54× |
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 | $22.2M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-64.0K | $19.8M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -0.1% | 12.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.7% | 1.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 9.18× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-8.1M | $25.2M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $2.7M | $22.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.3M | $29.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.3M | $10.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-5.3M | $-26.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.5M | $24.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.4M | $24.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-5.3M | $-5.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.5M | $-21.4M |
| Q4 25 | $-64.0K | $19.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3M | $26.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-3.8M | $7.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-7.5M | $-28.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.7M | $22.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.4M | $21.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-8.0M | $-7.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.7M | $-24.2M |
| Q4 25 | -0.1% | 12.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.2% | 19.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.5% | 5.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | -7.5% | -29.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | 17.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.1% | 15.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | -7.5% | -5.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.5% | -19.4% |
| Q4 25 | 2.7% | 1.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.9% | 2.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.3% | 1.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.2% | 2.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | 1.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.2% | 2.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.5% | 1.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.6% | 2.2% |
| Q4 25 | — | 9.18× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 6.70× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 3.61× | ||
| Q1 25 | -4.62× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.40× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.69× | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.64× | -1.74× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -4.83× |
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% |
FSTR
| Rail Technologies And Services Segment | $98.0M | 61% |
| Over Time Output Method | $26.3M | 16% |
| Services | $19.4M | 12% |
| Rail Technologies Products | $10.0M | 6% |
| Over Time Input Method | $8.3M | 5% |
