vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP (AP) and Hess Midstream LP (HESM). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Hess Midstream LP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($204.1M vs $104.4M, roughly 2.0× AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP). Hess Midstream LP runs the higher net margin — 77.3% vs -55.2%, a 132.5% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (11.5% vs 2.1%). Over the past eight quarters, AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP's revenue compounded faster (-2.6% CAGR vs -25.3%).
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...
Hess Corporation is an American global independent energy company involved in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas. It was formed by the merger of Hess Oil and Chemical and Amerada Petroleum in 1968. Leon Hess was CEO from the early 1960s until 1995, after which his son John B Hess succeeded him as chairman and CEO. The company agreed to be acquired by rival oil company Chevron in October 2023, and the acquisition closed in July 2025.
AP vs HESM — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $104.4M | $204.1M |
| Net Profit | $-57.7M | $157.7M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -54.0% | 116.7% |
| Net Margin | -55.2% | 77.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 11.5% | 2.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | -1958.9% | -2.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-2.87 | $0.68 |
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.
| Q1 26 | — | $204.1M | ||
| Q4 25 | $104.4M | $404.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $103.7M | $420.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $108.9M | $414.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.2M | $382.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $93.6M | $395.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | $92.1M | $378.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $107.1M | $365.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | $157.7M | ||
| Q4 25 | $-57.7M | $93.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-2.2M | $97.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-7.3M | $90.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.1M | $71.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.1M | $70.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-2.0M | $58.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.0M | $49.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | 116.7% | ||
| Q4 25 | -54.0% | 62.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.1% | 61.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.8% | 62.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.9% | 62.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.5% | 61.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.0% | 61.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.7% | 60.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | 77.3% | ||
| Q4 25 | -55.2% | 23.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | -2.1% | 23.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | -6.7% | 21.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.2% | 18.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 3.3% | 17.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | -2.1% | 15.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | 13.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | $0.68 | ||
| 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 | — |
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 | — |
| Total Assets | $495.4M | — |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 3.61× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $10.7M | $1.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $15.0M | $5.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.9M | $4.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $7.1M | $6.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $15.4M | $4.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.8M | $10.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.9M | $99.6M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $117.9M | $3.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | $119.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $115.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $115.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $116.4M | $3.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $116.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $119.4M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $32.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $60.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $62.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $64.6M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $58.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $61.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $58.0M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $495.4M | $4.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $524.4M | $4.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $537.2M | $4.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $536.2M | $4.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $530.9M | $4.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $547.4M | $4.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $560.8M | $4.1B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| 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× | — |
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 | $253.3M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-64.0K | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -0.1% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.7% | 51.4% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | 1.61× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-8.1M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $253.3M | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.7M | $245.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.3M | $258.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.3M | $276.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-5.3M | $202.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.5M | $258.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $11.4M | $224.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-5.3M | $271.6M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-64.0K | $178.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.3M | $178.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-3.8M | $213.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-7.5M | $156.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.7M | $163.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.4M | $132.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-8.0M | $207.7M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -0.1% | 44.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.2% | 42.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | -3.5% | 51.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -7.5% | 41.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | 41.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.1% | 35.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | -7.5% | 56.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | 51.4% | ||
| Q4 25 | 2.7% | 16.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.9% | 19.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.3% | 15.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.2% | 11.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.0% | 24.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.2% | 24.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.5% | 17.5% |
| Q1 26 | — | 1.61× | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 2.63× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.65× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 3.07× | ||
| Q1 25 | -4.62× | 2.83× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.40× | 3.67× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 3.84× | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.64× | 5.49× |
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% |
HESM
| Affiliate services | $197.9M | 97% |
| Third-party services | $6.2M | 3% |
