vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP (AP) and Global Net Lease, Inc. (GNL). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Global Net Lease, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($117.0M vs $104.4M, roughly 1.1× AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP). Global Net Lease, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 41.2% vs -55.2%, a 96.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (11.5% vs -15.1%). Over the past eight quarters, AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP's revenue compounded faster (-2.6% CAGR vs -11.1%).
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...
Global Net Lease, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate investment trust that acquires, owns and manages a diversified portfolio of commercial real estate assets under long-term net lease contracts. Its property portfolio spans North America and Europe, covering industrial, office, retail and other key sectors, serving tenants across multiple industries to deliver consistent long-term returns for shareholders.
AP vs GNL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q4 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $104.4M | $117.0M |
| Net Profit | $-57.7M | $48.2M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -54.0% | 94.7% |
| Net Margin | -55.2% | 41.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 11.5% | -15.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | -1958.9% | 838.7% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-2.87 | $0.14 |
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 | $117.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $103.7M | $121.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $108.9M | $124.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.2M | $132.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $93.6M | $137.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $92.1M | $138.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $107.1M | $145.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $110.0M | $147.9M |
| Q4 25 | $-57.7M | $48.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.2M | $-60.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-7.3M | $-24.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1M | $-189.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.1M | $-6.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-2.0M | $-65.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0M | $-35.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-2.7M | $-23.8M |
| Q4 25 | -54.0% | 94.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.1% | -11.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.8% | 33.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.9% | -21.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.5% | 40.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.0% | 9.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.7% | 42.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.1% | 38.6% |
| Q4 25 | -55.2% | 41.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | -2.1% | -49.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | -6.7% | -19.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.2% | -143.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.3% | -4.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.1% | -47.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | -24.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | -2.5% | -16.1% |
| Q4 25 | $-2.87 | $0.14 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.11 | $-0.32 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.36 | $-0.16 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.06 | $-0.87 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.16 | $-0.08 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.10 | $-0.33 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.10 | $-0.20 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.14 | $-0.15 |
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 | $180.1M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $117.9M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $32.6M | $1.7B |
| Total Assets | $495.4M | $4.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 3.61× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $10.7M | $180.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $15.0M | $165.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.9M | $144.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.1M | $147.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $15.4M | $159.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8M | $127.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.9M | $122.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.8M | $131.9M |
| 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 | $1.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $60.1M | $1.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $62.7M | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $64.6M | $1.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $58.9M | $2.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $61.3M | $2.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $58.0M | $2.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $56.3M | $2.5B |
| Q4 25 | $495.4M | $4.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $524.4M | $4.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $537.2M | $5.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $536.2M | $5.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $530.9M | $7.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $547.4M | $7.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $560.8M | $7.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $565.8M | $8.0B |
| 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 | $222.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-64.0K | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -0.1% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.7% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 4.62× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-8.1M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | $2.7M | $222.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.3M | $56.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.3M | $52.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-5.3M | $59.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.5M | $299.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.4M | $62.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-5.3M | $70.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.5M | $92.2M |
| Q4 25 | $-64.0K | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-3.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-7.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-8.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | -0.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.5% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -7.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.1% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -7.5% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.5% | — |
| Q4 25 | 2.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.3% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.5% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 4.62× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -4.62× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.40× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.64× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
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% |
GNL
| Industrial And Distribution Segment | $56.0M | 48% |
| Office Segment | $30.8M | 26% |
| Single Tenant Retail Segment | $30.2M | 26% |
